Pro t e  s t ant  Epi  s  c  opal  CI mr ch 

in  the  U.  S.  A,  Diocese 
of  Neu  Jersey. 


A  full  Report  of  the 

Proceed!;,    f  the  Special 

Convention 


BX5960 
.D63P96 


o'Sl^ie 


eS+ftvfT      Epi'acotoal 


'test  New    3et*s& 


\n    the    U.S.A. 

7 


51  kO 
3P<?k 


A  FULL  REPORT 


THE   PROCEEDINGS 


SPECIAL   CONTENTION 


Siffnst  joff  $[*to  |  m*g, 


HELD  IN  St.  MARY'S  CHURCH, 

BURLINQTON, 


March  17th,  185^' 


AND   REPORTED  FOR  THE  BANNER  OF    THE   CROSS. 


PHILADELPHIA:- 

KING  &  BAIRD,  PRINTERS,  No.  9  SANSOM  STREET. 
1852. 


EDITORIAL  OP  THE  BANNER  OF  THE  CROSS. 

March  20th. 

As  a  subject  in  which  the  whole  Church  is  interested,  we 
publish  a  full  and  accurate  report  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  Special  Convention  of  New  Jersey.  Feeling  the  deep 
importance  of  these  proceedings,  as  a  matter  not  merely 
concerning  present  interests  of  great  moment,  but  as  a  matter 
to  be  placed  upon  lasting  record,  we  employed  a  special  re- 
porter for  the  Banner,  to  spread  before  the  world  the  sayings 
as  well  as  the  doings  of  this  Convention,  in  order  that  there 
might  be  no  misrepresentation  made  concerning  what  was 
there  said  or  done.  Even  with  what  is  before  them,  none  can 
mistake  the  loud,  clear,  voice,  in  which  the  Diocese  of  New 
Jersey  has  declared,  in  her  solemn  synodical  action,  to  the 
Church  and  the  world,  her  deliberate  judgment  in  this  behalf. 
There  was  not  the  slightest  restriction  upon  the  freedom  of  de- 
bate. Every  one  who  desired  to  speak,  was  allowed  to  do  so, 
and  in  the  manner  he  wished.  And  when  it  is  considered, 
that  in  this  Convention  were  assembled  some  of  the  most  emi- 
nent men  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  men  distinguished  for 
their  moral  as  well  as  intellectual  qualities,  the  solemn,  recorded, 
vote  of  that  Convention  on  the  resolutions  concerning  their 
Bishop,  passed  by  such  an  overwhelming  majority,  must  satisfy 
every  reasonable  man.  If  such  solid  testimony  will  not  out- 
weigh the  breath  of  rumor,  and  have  more  force  than  the 
opinions  of  the  few  who  listen  to  its  voice,  then  we  live  in 
strange  times.  If  the  vote  of  such  a  Convention,  and  sustained 
by  such  men  as  those  composing  the  overwhelming  majority, 
and  uttered  by  such  a  voice,  cannot  shield  a  Bishop's  character 
against  attacks  like  those  made  upon  the  Bishop  of  New  Jer- 
sey, then  what  is  character  worth,  how  shall  it  be  estimated, 
how  shall  it  be  upheld  ? 

Among  the  lay  gentlemen,  composing  this  Convention,  and 
voting  with  the  majority,  were  the  Hon.  J.  "YV.  Miller,  United 
States  Senator,  the  late  Governor  Stratton,  Judge  Ogden  of  the 


Supreme  Court,  late  Judge  Carpenter  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
Judge  Robeson,  Captain  Engle,  of  the  U.  S.  Navy,  Hon.  Wm. 
Wright,  D.  B.  Ryall,  Esq.,  J.  J.  Chetwood,  Esq.,  and  many 
others  well  known,  even  beyond  New  Jersey.  It  is  also  worthy 
of  remark,  that  the  motion  for  the  Committee  was  made  by  a 
Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  the  resolutions  were  first 
supported  by  one  who  lately  held  the  same  high  and  responsi- 
ble office  in  the  administration  of  justice. 

Now,  when  it  is  considered,  that  these  gentlemen  united  in 
the  judgment  expressed  upon  the  resolutions,  with  the  fullest 
knowledge  and  understanding  of  all  that  is  urged  against  the 
Bishop,  we  should  think  the  vote  of  this  Special  Convention, 
recorded  before  the  world,  would  put  to  silence,  or  else  over- 
whelm, the  effect  of  all  that  either  has  been,  or  can  be,  urged  by 
public  rumor,  or  in  the  more  tangible  shape  of  unsupported 
charges. 

New  Jersey  has  not  only  asserted  her  unshaken  confidence 
in  her  Bishop,  but  she  also  claims,  by  her  Convention,  to  be 
the  proper  guardian  of  her  own  character.  And  it  remains  to 
be  seen  whether  this  right  will  be  disputed.  Others  have 
taken  the  great  liberty  of  predetermining  for  the  Bishops 
what  course  they  will  pursue.  And  injuriously,  as  we  think, 
to  these  Bishops,  hints  have  been  thrown  out,  as  to  the  deter- 
mination with  which  they  will  pursue  a  purpose  upon  which 
they  are  said  to  have  resolved.  We  cannot  think  thus  of  Bishops 
of  the  Church.  We  feel  persuaded,  that  as  it  now  must  be 
acknowledged  that  the  New  Jersey  Convention  have  taken  full 
cognizance  of  the  matter,  they  will  leave  it  in  the  hands  of 
those  who  are  well  qualified  to  sustain  the  purity,  the  honor, 
and  dignity  of  the  Church  in  their  own  Diocese.  Even  should 
it  not  be  so,  as  deep  concern  for  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the 
Church  alone,  lead  us  to  hope  it  will  be,  then  we  are  confident 
that  the  verdict  of  the  New  Jersey  Convention  will  certainly 
be  sustained  by  any  court,  or  any  tribunal,  wherein  justice 
presides,  in  our  land. 


. 


EDITORIAL  IN  BANNER  OF  THE  CROSS. 
March  27th. 

SPECIAL  CONVENTION  OF  NEW  JERSEY. 

Again  our  paper  is  occupied,  to  the  exclusion  of  much  other 
matter  in  hand,  with  an  account  of  this  important  Convention. 
We  have  spared  no  pains  to  have  a  full  and  accurate  report  of 
the  debate  upon  the  resolutions,  to  show  to  the  Church  the 
grounds  upon  which  the  action  of  this  Convention  rested.  We 
think  it  will  be  conceded  that  this  Convention  has  acted  calmly, 
deliberately,  and  with  a  proper  regard  to  the  great  interests 
concerned.  And  we  think  our  readers  will  agree  in  the 
opinion  thus  expressed,  by  the  Newark  Daily  Advertiser,  of  this 
Convention: 

"  Its  deliberations  were  earnest,  solemn  and  decorous,  and 
entirely  decisive — as  the  resolutions  we  subjoin,  and  which 
were  adopted  by  majorities  almost  amounting  to  unanimity, 
will  show." 

In  accordance  with  this  opinion  is  the  testimony  of  the 
Kew  York  Courier  and  Enquirer,  thus  expressed  : 

"  The  tone  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop's  friends,  was  bold, 
manly,  and  straight-forward.  Nothing  could  be  more  evident 
than  that  the  great  mass  of  the  Diocese,  clergy  and  laity,  in- 
cluding all  the  names  of  highest  ability,  learning  and  worth, 
are  united  as  one  man  in  their  love  for,  and  confidence  in,  their 
Bishop,  and  their  determination  to  stand  by  him  to  the  last, 
notwithstanding  all  the  assaults  of  his  enemies  and  their 
assistants." 

Indeed,  the  scene  witnessed  in  St.  Mary's  Church,  Burling- 
ton, was  one  never  to  be  forgotten  by  those  present.  Although 
it  was  onejof  the  stormiest  days  of  this  stormy  season,  the 
church  was  crowded  from  morning  till  night.  The  order  and 
quiet  which  reigned  within,  were  in  contrast  with  the  disturb- 
ance of  the  elements  without.  From  the  beginning  to  the  end, 
all  seemed  to  feel,  that  a  question  of  deep  and  solemn  interest 


was  before  them  ;  and,  only  once  or  twice  did  the  intense  feel- 
ing, which  pervaded  that  anxious  assembly,  find  vent  in 
manifest  expression,  and  this  was  gently,  but  firmly,  stopped 
at  once  by  the  Bishop. 

From  the  full  debates,  now  presented  to  them,  our  readers 
may  derive  a  just  idea  of  the  import  of  the  questions  concerned 
in  this  matter.  They  are  not  merely  of  a  personal  nature, 
though  the  dearest  interests  of  humanity  are  involved.  They 
concern  not  merely  one  Bishop,  or  one  Diocese,  but  every 
Bishop,  every  Diocese,  of  our  confederated  Church.  How  far 
a  Diocese  is  to  be  independent  and  sovereign,  in  matters  touch- 
ing first  and  chiefly  its  own  interests ;  how  far  the  most  awful 
power  in  the  Church  is  to  centre  in  the  Bishops,  as  a  distinct 
order,  or  to  be  shared  by  them  with  the  Clergy  and  Laity  in 
due  measure  and  order  ;  these  are  among  the  solemn  questions 
which  have  arisen  to  startle  many  in  the  Church,  and  upon 
whose  present  determination  grave  and  serious  issues  are  de- 
pending. That  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey  is  thoroughly 
aroused  to  a  full  sense  of  the  import  of  the  questions  forced 
upon  her  consideration,  and  that  her  present  action  has  taken 
place  in  full  view  of  all  this,  none  who  were  present  at  that 
Convention,  and  had  an  opportunity  of  knowing  the  prevailing 
sentiment  and  feeling,  can  for  a  moment  doubt.  For  the 
present,  we  refer  our  readers  to  the  full  report  to  judge  for 
themselves. 


SPECIAL  CONVENTION  OF  NEW  JERSEY. 

Morning  prayer  was  offered  by  the  Rev.  J.  L.  Watson,  Rec- 
tor of  Grace  Church,  Newark.  Selection  IV.  was  used  instead 
of  the  Psalms  for  the  day,  and  Special  Lessons  were  also  used. 
The  55th  chapter  of  Isaiah  was  read  for  the  first,  and  Ephesiana 
4th  for  the  second  lesson. 

The  Bishop  read  the  Ante-Communion  service,  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Otis  reading  the  Epistle.  After  singing  the  first  two 
verses  of  the  212th  Hymn,  the  Bishop  delivered  a  most  appro- 
priate and  impressive  address  to  the  congregation,  of  clergy 
and  laity,  assembled.  It  was  an  earnest  and  forcible  exhorta- 
tion, founded  upon  those  words  of  St.  Paul,  "  Brethren,  pray 
for  us."  The  great  truth  was  enforced  that  '  not  even  in  prayer' 
can  Christian  people  be  separated  from  Christian  ministers. 

After  the  address,  the  Bishop  proceeded  with  the  Holy  Com- 
munion, assisted  by  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Dunn,  Watson  and  Otis. 
There  was  a  very  large  Communion,  in  which  many  clergy- 
men from  other  Dioceses,  partook. 

The  Convention  was  then  called  to  order  by  the  Bishop,  when 
the  Secretary,  Rev.  E.  B.  Boggs,  called  the  roll  of  the  Clergy 
and  Laity  entitled  to  vote  at  this  Convention.  Forty-one  clergy- 
men were  present,  and  fifty-three  parishes  were  represented. 
Although  there  are  sixty-three  clergymen  in  the  Diocese,  there 
are  only  thirty-seven  entitled  to  a  vote,  in  accordance  with  the 
Canon  requiring  Rectors  to  be  instituted  before  they  can  have 
a  vote.  There  were  twenty-eight  clergymen  entitled  to  vote, 
present  in  this  Convention,  several  being  kept  away  by  other  ne- 
cessary duties. 

The  Convention  having  been  organized,  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishop 
delivered  the  following  Address : 


ADDRESS. 

My  Brethren  of  the  Clergy  and  of  the  Laity, 

For  the  tenth  time,  I  bid  you  welcome,  to  the  humble  altar, 
which  I  have  served,  in  all  humility,  for  nineteen  years.  You 
never  were  so  welcome  !  If  strange  events,  within  the  last 
few  weeks,  have  made  me  doubt  my  whereabout,  I  know,  and 
own  it  now.  When  I  look  round,  upon  "  the  old  familiar 
faces,"  and  feel,  distinct  and  clear,  the  beatings  of  the  old 
familiar  hearts,  I  recognize,  in  this  auspicious  gathering,  an 
assemblage,  such  as  Paul  had  seen,  had  he  gone,  after  his  bro- 
ther Epaphroditus  ;  and  found  him,  at  Philippi,  surrounded  by 
"  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus,  with  the  presbyters  and  deacons." 
I  catch,  instinctively,  the  apostolic  tones ;  and  lay  them  to 
your  hearts,  and  mine :  "  Grace  be  unto  you,  and  peace,  from 
God  our  Father,  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I  thank  my 
God,  upon  every  remembrance  of  you,  always,  in  every  prayer 
of  mine,  for  you  all,  making  request  with  joy,  for  your  fellow- 
ship in  the  Gospel,  from  the  first  day  until  now  ;  being  con- 
fident of  this  very  thing,  that  He,  which  hath  begun  a  good 
work  in  you,  will  perform  it,  unto  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ : 
even  as  it  is  meet  for  me  to  think  this  of  you  all,  because  I  have 
you  in  my  heart :  inasmuch,  as  both  in  my  bonds,  and  in  the 
defence  and  confirmation  of  the  Gospel,  ye  are  all  partakers  of 
my  grace."  '*  Stand  fast,  in  one  spirit,  with  one  mind,  striving 
together  for  the  faith  of  the  Gospel."  Which,  may  He  grant, 
who  gave  His  Son  to  die  for  us  ;  and  sends  His  Holy  Ghost,  to 
be  our  Sanctifier,  and  our  Comforter ! 

In  exercising,  for  the  first  time,  in  almost  twenty  years,  the 
constitutional  power  of  the  Episcopate,  to  call  a  Special  Con- 
vention, I  have  carefully  considered  my  duties  and  my  respon- 
sibilities ;  and  acted,  under  their  most  solemn  sense.  To  say, 
that  it  appeared,  to  my  mind,  "  requisite"  to  call  this  Conven- 
tion, "for  the  good  of  the  Church,"  would  fall  very  far  below 
my  estimate  of  the  occasion.  To  me,  it  seems  that,  in  the 
question  now  to  be  considered,  the  frame-work  of  the  Church, 
not  only,  but  its  foundations,  are  concerned.  And,  were  I 
silent,  I  should  bring  upon  my  head  the  curse  of  the  unfaithful 
watchman. 

I  shall  recite  to  you,  as  briefly  as  I  may,  the  circumstances 
which  have  occurred  ;  and  show  their  bearings  on  our  relations 
and  interests,  as  a  diocese  ;  and  leave  the  action,  then,  for  you 
to  take,  with  God  to  guide  and  bless  you.     As  far  as  shall  be 


9 

possible,  I  "shall  divest  myself  of  personal  regards  ;  and  bring 
the  case  before  you,  as  near  as  may  be,  on  its  abstract  merits. 
Ana  may  we  have,  in  this  momentous  matter,  the  promised 
presence  of  the  Holy  One,  to  guide  us  into  all  the  truth  ;  and 
to  fall  us  with  all  spiritual  blessings,  in  Christ  Jesus  ! 

It  was  on  the  second  day  of  February,  the  Feast  of  the  Pre- 
sentation of  Christ  in  the  Temple— a  day,  which  blends  a  human 
memory  with  the  divine;  since  it  took  from  me,  in  the  fle^h, 
my  dearest  Ogilby— that  the  matter  came  into  my  hands,  which 
forms  the  occasion  for  your  presence.   We  had  commemorated, 
tit  the  Chapel  of  the  Holy  Innocents,  as  our  custom  is,  on  all 
the  feast  days  of  the  Church,  the  dying  love  of  our  dear  Lord  • 
and  I  was  sitting  with  my  family,  one  of  the  clergy  of  the 
diocese,  and  two  of  the  candidates  for  holy  orders,  who  pursue 
their  sacred  studies  here,  being  present,  when   an  unknown 
person   without  asking  to  see  me,  or  leaving  his  name  forme, 
handed  in,  at  the  door,  a  sealed  enclosure,  to  my  address.     It 
contained— besides  the  documents,  signed  by  the  three  bishops 
and  the  four  laymen,  which  you  all  have  seen,  the  following, 
of  which  copies  will  be  laid  upon  the  Secretary's  table :  a  copy 
of  an  affidavit,  purporting  to  be  made  by  Michael  Hays;*  a 
letter  from  the  Bishop  of  Ohio  to  the  Bishop  of  Virginia,  dated 
at  Cincinnati,  January  15,  1852  ;  and  a  letter  of  instruction 
from  the  Bishop  of  Virginia,  dated  at  Millwood,  January  26 
addressed  to  "  the  Honorable  Mr.  Ilalstead,"  concluding  with 
the  following  sentence,  "  I  sincerely  pray,  that  the  God  of  truth 
and  holiness  may  take  your  well-meant  endeavor  for  godly 
discipline,  into  His  hands,  and  bring  it  to  the  proper  result/' 
and  signed,  "  your  friend  and  servant,  W.  Meade."     It  also 
contained  a  letter  addressed  to  me,  in  the  handwriting  of  the 
Bishop  of  Virginia,  the  contents  of  which,  in  the  same  hand- 
writing, were  these  words,  only—"  Bishop  Doane  is  requested 
to  communicate  his  determination  to  Bishop  Meade."     There 
was   neither  date,  nor  signature,   to  this.     It  took  but  little 
time,  to  make  up  this  "  determination."     The  man  that  sees  a 
woman  threatened,  by  a  ruffian,  requires  no  time,  for  his  "de- 
termination," to  protect  her.     When  the  Prometheus  had  been 
fared  at,  the  Government  at  Washington  required  no  time,  for 
their  "  determination,"  to   have  the  wrong,  done  to  our  flag 
repaired.     And,  when  the  heathen  magistrates,  who  had  beaten 

•  *,  f  ^°Py  of  this  PaPer  was  8ent'  bJ  me> to  *e  printer,  to  be 
included  in  my  "  Protest,  Appeal  and  Reply."  But,  on  the 
advice  of  the  friends,  on  whom  I  most  rely,  it  was  withdrawn 
from  the  printer;  on  the  ground,  that  it  was  not  referred  to, 
in  the  other  documents. 


10 

Paul  and  Silas,  at  Philippi,  and  cast  them  into  prison,  af- 
frighted by  the  earthquake,  sent  the  sergeants  to  the  jailor,  to 
say,  "  Let  these  men  go,"  it  took  no  time  for  Paul  to  send 
them  his  "  determination  :"  "  they  have  beaten  us  openly,  un- 
condemned,  being  Romans,  and  have  cast  us  into  prison ;  and, 
now,  do  they  thrust  us  out  privily  ?  Nay,  verily  ;  but  let 
them  come,  themselves,  and  fetch  us  out !"  The  determination 
of  my  mind  and  heart  was  made,  as  soon  as  I  had  closed  the 
documents.  And  I  only  regretted,  that  I  could  not  send  it  by 
the  magnetic  telegraph.  I  came  the  nearest  to  it,  that  I 
could,  and,  in  two  weeks,  mailed  to  the  Bishop  of  Virginia, 
with  a  printed  copy  of  my  "  Protest,  Appeal  and  Reply,"  the 
simple  words,  "  Bishop  Doane  sends  his  determination,  to 
Bishop  Meade,  by  the  mail,  which  bears  this  note."  On  the 
same  day,  the  Circular  was  issued,  to  the  several  churches ; 
which  has  brought  you  here:  "  to  consider,  and  express" your 
"judgment,  on  the  official  conduct  of  the  Bishops  of  Virginia, 
Maine  and  Ohio,  as  touching  the  rights  of  the  Bishop  and  the 
Diocese,  in  dictating  a  course  of  action  to  be  pursued  by  "  us  ;" 
in  their  letter,  addressed  to  "  me,"  dated  22d  September,  1851, 
and  received,  2d  February,  1852. 

I  could  pursue  no  other  course.  I  am  your  Bishop.  You 
took  me,  a  man  of  your  coasts  ;  and  set  me,  for  your  watch- 
man. 1  saw  your  dearest  and  most  sacred  rights  endangered. 
I  saw  your  most  deliberate  and  unanimous  action  disregarded. 
1  saw  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  you  free,  invaded 
and  denied.  I  felt,  that,  in  me,  you  were  assailed  ;  and,  in 
the  invasion  of  my  rights,  as  your  Bishop,  your  diocesan  inde- 
pendence was  attempted  to  be  set  at  nought.  If  I  could  have 
looked  upon  the  action  of  the  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine  and 
Ohio,  as  a  wrong  to  me,  alone,  I  should  have  prayed  for  grace, 
to  bear  it  patiently.  I  take  you  all  to  witness  that  I  have 
borne  many  wrongs,  and  submitted  to  most  grievous  injuries, 
and,  my  very  patience  has  been  turned  against  me.  I  re- 
membered, who,  for  me,  was  spit  upon,  and  buffeted,  and 
scourged  ;  and  I  rejoiced,  that,  for  His  name,  I  was  counted 
worthy  of  these  sufferings.  But,  when  my  sacred  order  was 
invaded ;  when  the  trust,  which  I  received  from  Jesus  Christ, 
as  a  Bishop  and  Pastor  of  His  flock,  was  interfered  with  ;  when 
foreign  hands  attempted  to  come  rudely  in,  between  us,  who 
are  knit  together,  before  God,  by  the  holiest  ties,  that  can  be 
formed,  on  earth,  there  was  but  one  course  open  for  me  to 
take :  to  resist  the  inroad,  in  the  name  and  strength  of  God ; 
and  summon  you,  to  take  such  counsel,  and  adopt  such  action, 
as  the  emergency  demands.  I  have  lived  peaceably,  with  all 
my  brethren.    No  one  has  yet  complained,  that  I  have  injured 


11 

or  offended  him.  But,  when  Peter  was  come  to  Antioch,  Paul 
withstood  him,  to  the  face  ;  because  he  was  to  be  blamed. 
And  I  have  now  withstood,  and  shall  withstand,  as  blame- 
worthy, towards  myself,  the  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine  and 
Ohio :  and  I  call  on  you  to  withstand  their  action  as  an 
aggression  on  your  rights,  as  a  Convention  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  ;  as  an  encroachment  on  the  freedom,  which 
was  vindicated  and  asserted  at  the  Reformation  ;  and  as  an 
attempted  overthrow  of  the  whole  venerable  fabric  of  our 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church. 

■  For,  observe  its  bearings,  on  our  relations  and  interests,  as  a 
diocese.  The  Church  was  not  created,  by  the  Constitution  or 
the  Canons.  Long  before  any  canons  were  enacted,  there  were 
dioceses  ;  with  bishops,  at  their  head.  For  this  cause,  Titus 
was  left  in  Crete,  and  Timothy  was  sent  to  Ephesus,  and 
Epaphroditus  went  to  Philippi.  The  relations  and  the  inte- 
rests of  dioceses  with  their  bishops  are  of  divine  authority. 
Constitutions  and  canons  do  but  set  forth,  and  define,  them. 
They  are  the  rules  of  order,  as  it  were,  by  which  the  Church 
agrees  to  act,  in  doing  its  great  work,  for  Jesus  Christ.  These 
are  unquestionable  truths,  of  universal  application.  They  are 
more  important,  to  be  watched  and  guarded,  when,  as  with  us, 
a  numberof  sovereign  and  independent  dioceses,  each  one 
complete,  in  Christ,  with  its  own  bishop,  have  consented,  for 
certain  purposes,  to  come  into  an  organized  confederation. 
Nothing  more  cardinal,  in  such  a  case,  than  careful  observation 
of  the  metes  and  bounds,  which  mark  out  and  define  the  rights 
of  dioceses.  Nothing  more  capital,  than  the  just  discrimina- 
tion, between  the  things  which  were  surrendered,  by  the  con- 
federating dioceses,  and  those  which  were  not,  and  can  never 
be.  "  Power  always  passes,"  says  an  eminent  divine  and 
canonist,*  of  our  own  Church,  "  slowly,  and  silently,  and  with- 
out much  notice,  from  the  hands  of  the  many  to  the  few  ;  and 
all  history  shows,  that  an  ecclesiastical  domination  grows  up 
by  little  and  little."  "  Then  come  canons,  to  bolster  up  the  pil- 
fered power,  until  the  bold  usurpation  has  fenced  itself  around 
with  a  wall,  which  even  truth  may  long  assault  in  vain.  The 
overwhelming  tyranny,  from  which  the  Reformation  freed  the 
Protestant  Church,  grew  up,  by  this  paulatim  process.  The 
very  warning,  let  it  be  remembered,  of  the  third  General 
Council,  which  met  at  Ephesus,  a.  d.  431,  "  that,  so,  the  canons 

*  The  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks,  on  the  Constitutions  and  Canons. 
See  also,  the  admirable  work,  "  The  Law  of  the  Church,"  by 
the  Hon.  Murray  Huffman,  of  New  York,  late  Vice-Chan- 
cellor. 


12 

of  the  Fathers  be  not  transgressed  ;  nor  the  pride  of  worldly 
power  be  introduced,  under  the  appearance  of  a  sacred  office  ; 
nor  we,  by  little,  lose  that  liberty,  wherewith  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Deliverer  of  all  men,  has  endowed  us,  by  His  own 
blood."  The  American  fathers  of  our  Church  were  not  un- 
mindful of  this  danger.  Of  six  general  principles,  established, 
"  as  a  foundation  for  the  future  forming  of  an  ecclesiastical 
body,  for  the  Church  at  large,"  at  a  Convention  of  the  Church, 
held  in  Philadelphia,  in  May,  1785, — the  first  in  any  of  the 
States,  at  which  the  laity  were  present,  the  last  recited  was  in 
these  words  :  "  that  no  power  be  delegated  to  a  general  eccle- 
siastical government,  except  such  as  cannot  conveniently  be 
exercised  by  the  clergy  and  laity,  in  their  respective  congrega- 
tions." Of  course,  when  diocesan  conventions  came  to  be  or- 
ganized, with  clergy  and  a  representative  laity,  the  reservation 
became  more  stringent  ;  as  it  became  more  available,  and  more 
important.  Nothing  can  be  clearer,  than  that  nothing,  which 
is  not  plainly,  ex  concesso,  from  the  several  dioceses,  belongs 
to,  or  can  be  claimed  by,  any  general  organization.  The 
canonist,  already  quoted,  in  a  very  careful  and  exact  discrimi- 
nation, between  the  things  conceded,  and  the  things  retained, 
recites  seven  instances  of  rights  as  very  clearly  retained  by  the 
dioceses.  And  these  are  two  of  them  :  "  To  hold  the  sole  and 
exclusive  jurisdiction  in  the  trial  of  offendin  g  clergymen, 
within  their  respective  limits;  and  to  prescribe  the  mode  of 
trial  "  A  point,  not  yielded,  as  regards  the  trial  of  a  bishop, 
until  the  General  Convention  of  1841.  And,  again,  "  to  have 
their  respective  bishops  subject  to  no  other  prelate,  and  to  be 
interfered  with  in  the  discharge  of  their  duty  by  no  other 
bishop,  but  in  all  things  belonging  to  their  office,  to  be  equal 
to  every  other  bishop  in  the  Church."  These  instincts  of  dio- 
cesan self-preservation  were  finally  embodied,  in  the  fourth 
article  of  the  Constitution  ;  which  requires,  that  "  every  bishop 
of  the  Church  shall  confine  the  exercise  of  his  Episcopal  office 
to  his  proper  diocese  ;  unless  requested  to  ordain,  or  confirm, 
or  perform  any  other  act  of  the  Episcopal  office,  by  any  church 
destitute  of  a  bishop."  All  of  them,  echoes  of  the  ancient 
canons.  As  of  Nicsea,  a.  d.  325,  that  "  Bishops  must  not  go 
beyond  their  dioceses,  nor  enter  upon  churches  without  their 
borders,  nor  bring  confusion  into  their  churches."  These 
ancient  rules,  embodied,  in  our  constitutional  restriction, 
supply  the  principle,  by  which  the  canon  "Of  the  trial  of  a 
Bishop,"  the  third  of  1844,  must  be  interpreted.  It  must  be  a 
strict  construction.  Nothing  must  be  taken,  by  it,  to  the  dis- 
advantage of  the  dioceses.  Nothing  must  be  claimed,  from  it, 
to  the  increase  of  what  is  yielded  to  the  Bishops,  generally. 


13 

The  whole  construction  of  the  canon  favors  these  conclusions- 
Authority,  to  make  presentment  of  a  Bishop,  is  fin-t  committed 
to  the  Convention  of  his  diocese.     The  care,  with  which  their 
action  is  restricted,  shows  the  deepest  sense  of  the  importance 
of  the  act,  and  the  necessity  of  guarding  it,  from  probable 
abuse.     Two-thirds  of  the  clergy,  entitled  to  seats,  must  be 
present.     Two-thirds  of  the  parishes,  canonically  in    union, 
must  be  represented.     At  least,  a  day  must  pass,  before  the 
resolution  offered  to  present,  passes  into  the  action  of  present- 
ment.    Two-thirds  of  each  order  present  must  concur.     When 
it  is  added,  after  all  these  guards  and  limits,  "  and  it  may  also 
be  made,  by  any  three  Bishops  of  the  Church" — as  it  is  now 
constituted,  less  than  one-tenth  of  the  whole  number — there 
can  be  nothingmore  apparent,  than  that  the  presentment,  by 
three  Bishops,  is  provided,  as  a  dernier  resort ;  that  the  prior 
right  and  duty  lie  with  the  Convention  ;  that  they  must  be 
presumed  reliable,  for  its  exercise  ;  that  they  are  entitled  to  do 
it  on  their  own  instance,  at  their  own  time,  and  in  their  own 
way;  and,  that,  only,  in  the  case  of  culpable  neglect ;  as  for 
heresy,  when  the  Convention  itself  is  heretical ;  or,  if  for  immo- 
rality, when  the  Convention  is  overruled,  or,  in  some  other  way, 
deprived,  of  its  free  action,  is  the  alternative  to  be  employed. 
An  alternative,  which,  if  not  strictly  guarded,  and  made  fear- 
fully responsible,  will   exercise   an  in  terrorem  influence,  in 
all  the  dioceses  ;  tempt,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the  pandering 
to  power,  and  to  grasping  after  it,  on  the  other ;  and  create, 
extend,  and  make  perpetual,  a  mutual  distrust  and  jealousy, 
which  will  destroy  the  possibility  of  love.     No  doubt  three 
Bishops  may  present.     As  little  doubt,  three  Bishops  never 
can  present ;  and  not  imply,  by  their  presentment,  the  inabi- 
lity, or  else,  the  indisposition,  of  the  Convention,  to  discharge 
what  they  believe  to  be  its  duty.     An  exercise  of  judgment,  it 
will,  at  once  be  seen,  most  delicate,  most  dangerous.     To  be 
shrunk  from,  by  all  Bishops ;    so  long  as  conscience  suffers 
them  to  shrink  ;  and,  then,  to  be  performed  most  carefully, 
most  tenderly,  with  most  exact  observance  of  the  law.     To  be 
resisted  by  all  Conventions,  unless  all  the  letter  of  the  law,  with 
all  its  spirit,  can  be  clearly  shown  to  authorize,  not  omy,  but 
require,  it.     To  admit  any  other  construction,  in  the  premises, 
is  to  allow  the  monstrous  supposition,  that  the  Convention  of  a 
diocese,  in  which  a  thousand  pastors  feed  a  thousand  flocks, 
may,  in  the  matter  of  the  presentment  of  its  diocesan,  be  set 
aside,  and  superseded,  by  "  any  three,"  out  of  three  hundred 
bishops,  is  to  incur  the  fearful  risk,   in   times   of    doctrinal 
discussion,  or  ecclesiastical  division,  of  offering  a  premium  to 
•disaffection  and  sedition  ;  that,  so,  numbers  may  be  regulated 


14 

and  votes  controlled,  for  the  establishment  of  a  hierarchy,  or 
for  the  attainment  of  a  primacy.  We  need  but  look  to  Rome, 
to  see  what  has  been.  We  need  not  look  so  far,  to  see  what 
may  be. 

Such  is  the  theory  of  the  Canon  "  of  the  Trial  of  a  Bishop," 
so  far  as  the  presentment,  by  three  Bishops,  is  concerned.  Such 
are  some  of  the  dangers  to  which  it  is  exposed.  And  such  the 
care  and  caution,  with  which  it  needs  to  be  interpreted,  and 
acted  on.  Its  bearings,  and  relations  on  the  diocese*  as  con- 
nected with  the  action,  which  is  now  complained  of,  are  now 
to  be  set  forth.  In  doing  so,  there  shall  be  no  want  of  pains, 
that  self-control  and  self-subjection  can  supply,  to  merge  the 
personal  in  the  official.  And  the  utmost  brevity  shall  be  em- 
ployed, which  truth  and  duty  will  permit.  As  late  as  the 
annual  Convention  of  the  diocese,  which  met  at  Newark,  in 
1848,  there  was  no  intimation  of  complaints,  against  the 
Bishop.  Nor,  until  the  early  part  of  the  next  year.  He  had 
been,  then,  for  twelve  years  engaged  in  carrying  on  an  institu- 
tion for  Female  Education,  on  Church  principles ;  and  was 
connected,  of  necessity,  with  large  financial  responsibilities 
and  transactions.  These  were  greatly  increased,  when,  in 
1846,  a  College  was  established  ;  and  the  Trustees  being  with- 
out funds  for  the  purpose  permitted  him  to  use  the  College 
property  ;  and  carry  on  the  Institution,  at  his  own  risk,  and  for 
his  own  advantage.  It  seemed  the  only  way  to  get  the  work 
in  operation.  The  enterprise  was  prosperous.  Buildings  and 
fixtures  and  furniture  were  needed.  The  Trustees  had  no 
funds.  They  permitted  the  Bishop  to  collect  money,  in  their 
name  and  to  use  it,  for  them,  in  his  discretion.  But  his  duties 
in  the  College,  increasing  with  its  increase,  forbade  his  going 
from  home,  on  such  an  embassy.  And  the  pressure  for  accom- 
modation being  urgent,  he  yielded  to  the  importunity  of  those, 
who,  on  his  responsibility,  were  willing  to  erect  the  buildings  ; 
and,  being  without  pecuniary  means,  himself,  embarked  his 
credit,  in  the  undertaking.  The  work  went  on.  The  debt,  in- 
curred, pressed  heavily.  The  expected  relief  was  not  received. 
The  cost  of  carrying  the  debt,  and  meeting  the  demands  of  an 
increasing  patronage,  was  ruinous.  As  it  could  not  be  paid, 
and  had  no  basis  in  real  estate,  it  had  to  be  turned,  from  time 
to  time.  And,  every  time  it  had  to  be  turned,  the  weight  was 
fearfully  increased.  A  sickness,  of  five  months,  suspended  all 
personal  exertion:  and,  after  an  unsuccessful  effort  to  continue 
the  Institutions,  by  special  Trustees,  with  an  extension  from 
the  creditors,  the  Bishop,  by  the  advice  of  some  of  the  most 
influential  laymen  of  the  diocese,  made,  on  the  26th  day  of 
March,  1849,  an  assignment  of  all  his  property.    Arrange- 


15 

merits  were  completed,  to  carry  on  the  Institutions,  under  his 
direction,  through  the  agency  of  others ;  and  they  opened,  on 
the  first  day  of  May,  with  the  fairest  prospect  of  success.  On 
the  30th  day  of  May,  the  annual  convention  assembled,  in  this 
city.  And,  on  the  next  day,  a  Lay  Deputy  from  St.  Michael's, 
Trenton,  introduced  the  following  preamble  and  resolution  : 
"  Whereas,  A  Bishop  should  be  blameless,  and  should  have  a 
good  report  of  those  that  are  without,  lest  he  fall  into  reproach  ; 
and  whereas,  public  rumor,  as  well  as  newspaper  publications, 
have  made  serious  charges  against  our  Bishop,  impeaching  his 
moral  character,  tending  to  impair  his  usefulness,  and  to  bring 
the  Church,  of  which  he  is  Bishop,  into  disrepute,  therefore, 
Resolved,  that  a  committee  be  appointed  consisting  of  three 
clergymen  and  three  laymen,  who,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall 
make  such  inquiries,  as  shall  satisfy  them  of  the  innocency  of 
the  accused,  or  of  the  sufficiency  of  ground,  for  presentment 
and  trial ;  and  that  they  do  make  report  to  this  Convention,  at 
its  present  session,  or  at  such  other  time,  as  this  Convention 
shall  designate."  The  full  and  minute  report  which  has  been 
made  public,  drawn  up  by  a  distinguished  lay  member  of  that 
Convention,  and  certified,  by  his  well-known  initials,  dispenses 
with  the  necessity  of  detailing  the  proceedings,  which  followed. 
There  was  a  wide  and  earnest  discussion.  No  one  admitted 
that  the  course  pursued  was  regular  or  allowable.  All  who 
opposed  it,  declared  themselves  ready  and  willing,  to  receive 
authenticated  charges,  and  to  give  them  the  fullest,  most 
deliberate  consideration.  Challenges,  more  bold,  unqualified, 
unsparing,  were  never  made.  And  were  not  met,  in  any  way ; 
to  secure  the  attention  of  the  Convention.  When  the  vote  was 
taken,  on  the  resolution,  no  voice  sustained  it.  When  the 
Convention  had  adjourned,  the  mover  of  the  resolution,  in  the 
presence  of  the  whole  assemblage,  offered  his  hand  to  the 
Bishop;  and  declared  himself  entirely  satisfied  with  the  result. 
And  the  Convention  of  this  Diocese,  at  two  subsequent  annual 
sessions,  have  signified  their  own  satisfaction,  by  their  perfect 
silence  on  the  subject.  Consider  the  circumstances  of  the 
case ;  and  say,  if  they  had  not  reason  to  be  satisfied.  The 
Bishop  of  the  diocese  had  lived  in  Burlington,  more  than  six- 
teen years.  During  all  that  time,  he  had  had  the  care  of  souls, 
as  the  Rector  of  the  Parish.  For  twelve  years  he  had  been 
extensively  engaged,  in  a  responsible  and  arduous  business, 
as  the  Founder  and  Head,  not  only,  of  two  extensive  Academic 
Institutions,  but  as  their  financial  provider  and  director.  He 
had  thus  been  brought  in  contact,  every  way,  with  every  body. 
With  a  large  and  increasing  number  of  parishioners  ;  with 
numerous  and  powerful  patrons ;  with  a  host  of  persons,  in 


16 

various  departments  of  academic  and  subordinate  service ; 
■with  business  people,  of  every  kind  ;  and,  with  the  whole  com- 
munity. He  had  failed,  in  his  business  ;  disappointed  the  ex- 
pectations of  many;  put  them  to  serious  inconvenience;  it 
might  be,  subjected  them  to  loss.  Two  months  after  that  oc- 
currence, the  Convention  sat,  in  the  very  seat  and  centre  of  all 
this.  The  delegates,  Clerical  and  Lay,  were  dispersed  about 
the  town.  Their  coming  had  been  known,  from  the  beginning. 
There  were  time  and  opportunity,  to  prepare  charges,  if  there 
were  grounds  for  any  to  be  made.  There  was  access  to  those, 
who  could  present  them,  and  enforce  them.  There  was,  at  least, 
one  willing  hand.  And  that  presented  itself,  late  on  the  second 
day  of  the  session,  and,  on  the  sole  ground  of  "public  rumor, 
and  newspaper  proceedings,"  laid  on  the  table  of  the  Conven- 
tion, a  resolution  of  accusation  against  the  Bishop.  Let  it  be 
supposed,  that  the  same  hand,  or  any  other,  had  laid  on  that 
table,  articles  of  presentment  duly  framed  ;  and  the  Conven- 
tion, after  a  consideration  and  discussion,  of  several  hours, 
had  said,  unanimously,  We  will  not  receive  them  ;  the  subject 
shall  not  be  entertained — and  who  is  he,  that  should  declare 
such  action  not  compatible,  with  its  responsibilities  and  rights, 
or  deny  that  it  was  final?  There  are  charges  so  monstrous, 
there  are  assertions  so  outrageous,  that  an  instinct  of  humanity 
revolts,  at  their  reception  ;  and  an  acclamation  of  indignant 
virtue  scouts  them,  from  its  presence.  It  cannot  be  denied, 
and  never  has  been,  until  within  the  last  few  months,  that  this 
Convention,  in  the  month  of  May,  1840,  beins;  in  full  posses- 
sion of  the  whole  case,  as  concerning  the  Bishop,  or,  in  a  posi- 
tion to  have  that  full  possession,  did  freely,  fully  and  finally 
dismiss  the  subject ;  and,  by  that  act,  declare  its  full,  perfect, 
and  entire  satisfaction,  with  the  innocency  of  the  accused. 
"  The  vote  of  the  Convention  in  1849,"  writes  a  man,  than 
whom  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  holds  not  one  of  higher  cha- 
racter and  influence,  "  had  struck  your  chief  accuser  dumb  :  a 
vote  given  on  the  spot,  in  answer  to  every  local  complaint ; 
and  suited  by  its  earnestness  and  unanimity  to  supersede  all 
further  investigation."  "  The  public,  generally,  viewed  it  as  a 
full  refutation."  Until  new  subject  matter,  for  an  accusation 
has  been  found,  the  action  of  that  Convention,  is  insisted  on  as 
final.  The  action  has  taken  place  in  diocesan  Convention. 
The  Bishops  cannot  take  it  up.  To  admit  it,  were  to  surrender 
the  very  outposts  of  all  freedom,  ecclesiastical  and  civil. 
Against  such  action,  the  Bishop  of  this  diocese  has  protested ; 
and  now  protests,  again  ;  and  ever  will  protest.  He  protests, 
not  for  himslf,  alone,  or  chiefly :  but  for  the  diocese  ;  for  his 
successor ;  for  the  whole  Church ;  for  every  Bishop,  always, 


17 

and  every  where.  He  may  be  left  to  protest,  alone.  He  may 
be  left,  to  suffer.  He  may  be  left,  to  fall.  But,  it  never  shall 
be  said  of  him,  that  he  was  faithless  to  the  trust,  which  he 
received  from  Jesus  Christ,  to  be  transmitted,  unimpaired,  to 
his  successor.  It  never  shall  be  said,  of  him,  that,  in  the  time 
of  trouble,  he  forsook  the  flock,  which  Jesus  Christ  had  left  with 
him,  to  feed  ;  and  fled. 

But,  there  is  a  further  ground  of  protest  and  resistance. 
Suppose,  that  this  Convention  had  not  acted,  in  the  case. 
Suppose  its  action  had  not  been  conclusive.  The  Bishops  or 
any  of  them,  would  have  had  undoubted  right  to  make  in- 
quiry, in  the  case.  If  they  did,  they  would  have  been  expected 
to  do  so,  under  a  full  sense  of  what  is  due  to  every  brother ; 
and  with  a  careful  observance  of  all  the  charities  and  all  the 
courtesies,  involved  in  that  relation.  But,  to  make  inquiry 
would  have  been  their  right.  It  might  have  been  their  bounden 
duty.  For  such  an  inquiry,  every  facility  would  have  been 
furnished.  To  such  an  inquiry  every  encouragement  would 
have  been  given.  The  books  would  have  been  thrown  open. 
The  Institutions  would  have  been  thrown  open.  The  access 
to  every  person  and  every  paper,  connected  with  the  business, 
would  have  been  thrown  open.  No  one,  that  knows  the  truth, 
in  this  connection,  doubts  the  issue,  for  a  moment.  No  wrong 
has  been  done.  No  wrong  could  have  been  discovered.  Complete 
and  perfect  satisfaction  would  have  waited  on,  would  have  met 
half-way,  an  inquiry,  instituted  so,  and  so  conducted.  Or,  for  a 
moment,  grant,  it  was  not  so.  Then,  any  three  of  all  the  Bishops 
would  have  had  the  clear  canonical  right  to  present.  But,  only 
to  present.  No  right,  conceded  to  them,  anywhere — no  right,  in 
nature,  or  in  reason,  and,  much  less,  in  Christian  obligation,  and 
ecclesiastical  relations — to  adopt  a  list  of  accusations,  supported 
but  by  rumor,  and  without  suitable  inquiry,  as  to  the  responsi- 
bility of  those  who  furnished  them,  as  the  ground  of  an  official 
action ;  no  right,  to  make  a  formal  communication,  under 
their  official  signatures  ;  no  right,  to  call,  in  such  official  paper, 
on  a  diocesan  bishop  to  take  prompt  and  effectual  measures 
for  securing  the  action  of  his  Convention,  under  the  Canon, 
"  Of  the  Trial  of  a  Bishop;"  no  right,  to  express  judgment  as 
to  the  past  action  of  a  diocesan  Convention,  as  having  refused 
"  to  institute  inquiry,"  or  neglected  to  do  it,  "  for  too  long  a 
period,"  or  performed  its  duty  "  unfaithfully,"  and  as  having 
been  "  resisted  and  prevented  when  the  attempt  was  made, 
to  induce  them  to  discharge  it;  no  right,  to  indicate  as  the 
course  to  be  pursued  the  calling  of  "  a  Special  Convention," 
"  without  delay,"  when  the  matters  in  accusation  were,  at 
least,  three  years  old,  and  the  stated  Annual  Convention  of 

2 


18 

the  Diocese  was  to  be  held,  in  less  than  four  months ;  no  right, 
to  direct  that  such  Special  Convention  should  be  for  the  pur- 
pose of  "a  full  investigation,  of  all  that  has  been  or  may  be" 
charged,  "  whether  in  the  document  transmitted"  or  " other- 
wise ;"  no  right,  to  require  of  such  Convention  when  it  should 
be  called,  as  the  only  means  of  satisfying  others,  and  removing 
"  the  suspicion  of  great  guilt "  the  appointment  of  a  Committee  ; 
no  right,  to  imply  that  such  Convention  would  appoint  any 
other  than  "  an  impartial  and  intelligent  Committee,  in  whom 
great  confidence"  would  "be  reposed;"  no  right,  to  furnish 
instructions  for  such  Committee,  when  appointed,  as  to  the 
nature  and  extent  of  its  investigations ;  no  rigid,  to  declare, 
beforehand,  and  lay  clown  as  law,  that  "  no  mere  report  of  a 
Committee,  or  vote  of  a  Convention  declaring  a  belief  of  inno- 
cency,  and  that  an  inquiry  is  unnecessary  will  suffice"  to 
vindicate  reputation  or  "give  satisfaction  to  the  public,"  and, 
that  "nothing  but  such  an  investigation"  will  satisfy  those 
who  are  deemed  "unfriendly,"  or  "relieve  the  minds  of 
friends:"  no  right,  to  call  upon  the  Bishop,  to  "disprove"  or 
"satisfactorily  explain,"  the  things  laid  to  his  charge,  or  else 
"acknowledge"  them;  no  right,  finally,  and  above  all,  to 
declare  the  purpose,  in  the  failure  to  make  such  disproof,  or 
extenuation,  or  to  make  it  satisfactorily  to  them,  to  present  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey — the  alternative  proposed,  in  terms, 
being,  either,  a  presentment  made  by  the  Convention,  or  suffi- 
cient reasons  assigned  by  the  Convention,  why  it  is  not 
merited  ;  or  else,  the  three  communicating  Bishops  themselves, 
to  institute  a  trial,  according  to  the  Canon  of  the  General 
Convention:  in  one  word,  in  the  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine 
and  Ohio,  no  right,  in  any  form  or  shape,  much  less,  in  the 
form  and  shape  adopted  by  them,  to  dictate  to  the  diocese  of 
New  Jersey,  and  its  Bishop,  under  the  enforcement  of  a 
threat,  a  couise  of  action,  to  be  pursued,  by  them. 

The  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio,  with  an  unques- 
tionable right,  upon  the  hypothesis  now  made,  of  no  Conventional 
action,  and  of  unsatisfactory  inquiry  and  their  part — to  present 
the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  if  they  believed  they  were  bound  to 
do  so,  under  all  the  circumstances,  by  their  vows  of  consecra- 
tion, had  no  right  to  adopt  a  list  of  accusations,  presented 
upon  public  rumor,  and  without  inquiry  as  to  the  responsi- 
bility of  those  who  presented  them,  as  the  ground  of  an  official 
action.  That  the  action  was  official,  is  apparent,  by  the  whole 
terms  and  tenor  of  the  communication ;  by  the  pains  taken  to 
secure  the  number  of  signatures  required  for  an  official  act ; 
by  the  official  style  adopted,  in  the  signatures  ;  and  by  the 
formal,  impersonal,  and  abrupt  communication,  which  accom- 


19 

panied  the  document,  "  Bishop  Doane  is  requested  to  commu- 
nicate his  determination  to  Bishop  Meade."  That  the  accusa- 
tions furnished  to  the  Bishops,  were  presented  on  public  rumor, 
the  communication  of  the  four  laymen  shows  for  itself.  That 
the  thi'ee  Bishops,  not  only  received  but  adopted  it,  is  obvious, 
from  their  language.  "  Such  is  the  character,"  they  say, 
"  and  so  great  is  the  number  of  charges  specified,  in  that  docu- 
ment, that  we  do  not  feel  ourselves  at  liberty  to  decline  the  call 
thus  made  upon  us."  They  speak  of  "  the  reasonable  demands 
of  complainants."  They  describe  the  charges,  made,  in  the 
document  before  them,  as  of  a  nature  to  cause  "great  grief" 
to  many  ;  to  have  occasioned  "  the  injury  of  religion  ;"  and  to 
warrant  "the  suspicion  of  great  guilt."  That  this  was  done 
without  suitable  inquiry,  as  to  the  responsibility  of  those  who 
furnished  them,  rests  on  the  reasonable  claim,  that  such 
inquiry  should  have  addressed  itself,  to  the  Bishop,  concerned 
in  the  subject  of  it ;  or  to  his  friends  ;  or,  at  least,  to  some  of 
his  neighbors:  which  it  did  not.  The  Bishops  of  Virginia, 
Maine  and  Ohio  had  no  right  to  pursue  the  course  of  action 
which  they  adopted,  on  the  ex  parte  representations  of  four 
persons ;  one  of  them  extensively  known  to  have  been  opposed 
to  the  Bishop  for  many  years,  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Con- 
vention ;  and  of  another,  known,  as  extensively,  to  be  in  oppo- 
sition to  his  Bishop ;  and,  that,  when  one  of  their  number,  the 
Bishop  of  Ohio,  was  in  the  diocese,  and  in  the  city  of  Burling- 
ton ;  and  had  the  opportunity  to  inquire  into  the  allegations,  or 
into  the  responsibility  of  those,  who  presented  them ;  and  did 
not  do  it. 

The  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio,  with  an  unques- 
tionable right,  upon  the  hypothesis  now  made,  to  present  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  if  they  believed  they  were  bound  to  do 
so,  under  all  the  circumstances,  by  their  consecration  vows,  had 
no  right  to  make  a  formal  communication  to  him,  under  their 
official  signatures.  No  one  of  them  is  his  ecclesiastical  supe- 
rior. The  three,  together,  have  no  ecclesiastical  superiority 
over  him.  This  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  still  holds  to 
"  the  ancient  customs"  enjoined  at  Nicea,  in  A.  D.  325  ;  still 
stands  upon  the  fundamental  principle,  on  which  the  American 
dioceses  came  together,  in  A.  D.  17&5  :  "to  have  the  respective 
Bishops  subject  to  no  other  prelate,  and  to  be  interfered  with 
in  the  discharge  of  their  duty,  by  no  other  Bishop  ;  but  in  all 
things  belonging  to  their  office,  to  be  equal  with  any  other 
Bishop,  in  the  Church."  They  might  have  made  the  canonical 
presentment.  They  hold  no  other  official  right,  in  regard  to 
him.  They  might  have  addressed  him,  jointly  or  severally,  as 
Christian  brethren,  in  the  common  bond  of  the  Episcopate. 


20 

They  have  no  right  to  address  him,  in  official  form,  and  with 
the  authority  of  their  official  station. 

The  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio,  with  an  unques- 
tionable right,  upon  the  hypothesis  now  made,  to  present  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  if  they  believe  they  were  bound  to  do 
so,  under  all  the  circumstances,  by  their  vows  of  consecration, 
had  no  right,  to  call  on  him,  in  an  official  paper,  to  take 
prompt  and  effectual  measures  for  securing  the  action  of  the 
Convention,  under  the  canon,  "Of  the  Trial  of  a  Bishop." 
They  rightly  state  the  expectation  of  the  Church,  in  that  canon, 
to  be,  that  action  shall  "first  take  place,  in  diocesan  Conven- 
tions ;"  though  by  subsequent  limitations,  they  deny  it,  and 
destroy  it:  constituting  themselves  the  judges,  as  to  whether  a 
diocesan  Convention  shall  act,  when  it  shall  act,  and  how  it 
shall  act;  a  power  which  no  canon  could  confer  on  them: 
because  it  would  annul  the  first  and  fundamental  principles  of 
Episcopal  independence,  and  diocesan  sovereignty.  But,  most 
assuredly,  they  have  no  right,  officially,  to  call  upon  the 
Bishop,  to  secure  the  action  of  his  own  Convention,  in  a  matter 
of  discipline,  relating  to  himself.  The  relations  between  the 
Bishop  of  a  Diocese  and  his  Convention  are  the  most  delicate, 
that  can  exist,  on  earth.  They  must  be  close.  They  must  be 
private.  They  must  be  sacred.  If  any  one  may  come  between 
them,  if  any  thing  can  be  supposed  possible  to  come  between 
them,  there  is  an  end  of  intimacy,  there  is  an  end  of  confidence, 
there  is  an  end  of  mutuality.  It  is  what  the  ancient  canons 
so  positively  forbid,  "  the  bishops  must  not  go  beyond  their 
dioceses,  nor  enter  upon  churches,  without  their  boundaries, 
nor  bring  confusion  into  their  churches :"  and  what  the  consti- 
tution for  the  government  of  this  church  expressly  ordains, 
"  every  Bishop  of  the  Church,  shall  confine  the  exercise  of  hia 
episcopal  office  to  his  proper  diocese." 

The  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio,  with  an  unques- 
tionable right  upon  the  hypothesis  now  made,  to  present 
the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  if  they  believed  that  they  were 
bound  to  do  so,  under  all  the  circumstances,  by  their  vows  of 
consecration,  had  no  right  to  express  their  official  judgment, 
as  to  the  past  action  of  the  Convention  of  his  diocese,  as  having 
refused  to  institute  inquiry,  or  neglected  to  do  it,  for  "  too 
long  a  period,"  or  performed  the  duty  unfaithfully  ;  and  as 
having  been  resisted  and  prevented,  when  the  attempt  was 
made.  The  sufficient  disposition  of  all  this  will  be  found  in 
the  official  record,*  in  the  Journal  of  1849,  so  far  as  that  Con- 

*  The  Journal  says,  "  After  full  debate  and  discussion  of 
this  resolution,  the  question  being  put,  none  voting  in  the 
affirmative,  it  was  lost  by  a  unanimous  negative." 


21 

vention  is  concerned  ;  and  for  the  subsequent  Conventions,  in 
the  reference,  to  the  recollections  of  their  members. 

The  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio,  with  an  unques- 
tionable right,  upon  the  hypothesis  now  made,  to  present  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  if  they  believed  they  were  bound  to  do 
so,  under  all  the  circumstances,  by  their  vows  of  consecration, 
had  no  right  to  indicate,  as  the  course  to  be  pursued,  the  call- 
ing of  a  special  Convention  "  without  delay  ;"  when  the  mat- 
ters in  accusation  are  at  least  three  years  old,  and  the  stated 
annual  Convention  of  the  diocese,  was  to  be  held  in  less  than 
four  months  ;  no  right  to  direct  that  such  special  Convention 
should  be  for  the  purpose,  of  a  full  investigation  of  all  that  has 
been,  or  "  that  may  be,"  charged,  whether  in  the  document 
transmitted,  "  or  otherwise."  Where  did  these  Bishops  get 
the  power  to  issue  their  mandamus,  to  compel  the  Convention 
to  discharge  its  duty  ?  Why,  when  almost  three  years  had 
passed,  since  the  occurrence  of  the  last  of  the  accusations, 
charged,  as  criminal,  this  hot  impatience,  that  could  not  wait 
from  the  second  day  of  February,  till  May,  when  the  annual 
Convention  meets  ;  but  must  have  a  "  Special  Convention," 
and  that  "  without  delay  ?"  And,  where,  their  right  to  issue 
a  roving  commission,  for  this  Special  Convention,  for  the  full 
investigation,  not  only,  of  what  has  been,  but  of  "what  may 
be"  charged ;  not  only  for  the  allegations  presented  in  the 
document  transmitted,  but  in  any  "  otherwise  ?"  Where  is 
the  limit  to  so  broad  a  claim  ?  Who  is  to  see  the  first  end,  of 
what  has  reached  so  far,  at  first  ? 

The  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio,  with  an  unques- 
tionable right,  upon  the  hypothesis  now  made,  to  present  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  if  they  believed,  they  were  bound  to  do 
so,  under  all  the  circumstances,  by  their  vows  of  consecration, 
had  no  right  to  require  of  such  "  Special  Convention,"  when  it 
should  be  called,  as  the  only  means  of  satisfying  others,  and 
removing  the  suspicion  of  great  guilt,  the  appointment  of  a 
Committee;  no  right  to  imply  that  such  a  Convention  would 
appoint  any  other,  than  an  "  impartial  and  intelligent  com- 
mittee," "  in  whom  great  confidence  would  be  reposed ;"  no 
right,  to  furnish  instructions  for  such  Committee,  when  ap- 
pointed, as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  its  investigations;  no 
right,  to  declare  beforehand,  and  lay  down  as  law,  that  no 
mere  report  of  a  Committee,  or  vote  of  a  Convention,  declaring 
a  belief  of  innocency,  and  that  an  inquiry  is  unnecessary,  will 
suffice  to  vindicate  reputation,  or  give  satisfaction  to  the  pub- 
lic ;  and  that  nothing  but  such  an  investigation  will  satisfy 
those  who  are  deemed  unfriendly,  or  relieve  the  minds  of 
friends.    One  knows  not  which  to  wonder  at  the  most ;  the 


22 

complacency  that  undertakes  to  represent  the  public — the 
friends  alike,  and  those  who  are  "  deemed  unfriendly — "and 
prescribe  just  the  course,  which  will  be  satisfactory,  when  no 
other  will ;  or  the  boldness,  which  presumes  to  make  it  indis- 
pensable. Will  it  be  believed,  that  these  words  are  written  to 
a  Bishop  ?  Will  it  be  believed,  that  they  are  written  of  a 
Convention,  which  includes,  with  seventy  clergymen,  the  re- 
presentatives of  sixty  congregations  ?  Will  it  be  believed  that 
they  apply  to  freemen  1  Will  it  be  believed  that  they  apply  to 
Protestants?  Really,  these  are  truths,  which  are  more  strange 
than  any  fiction  :  and  these  are  of  them. 

The  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio,  with  an  unques- 
tionable right,  upon  the  hypothesis  now  made,  to  present  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  if  they  believed  that  they  are  bound  to 
do  so,  under  all  the  circumstances,  by  their  vows  of  consecra- 
tion, had  no  right  to  call  on  him  to  disprove,  or  satisfactorily 
explain,  the  things  laid  to  his  charge,  or  else  acknowledge 
them.  When  was  this  new  administration  of  the  law  against 
alleged  offenders,  introduced  ?  Or,  is  a  Bishop,  when  accused, 
an  outlaw  ?  "  It  would  certainly  be  introducing  a  new  and 
dangerous  principle  in  our  jurisprudence,"  writes  an  eminent 
layman,  from  another  diocese,  "  to  require  a  person,  accused 
of  high  misdemeanors  or  crimes,  that  he  should  be  able  to  dis- 
prove or  satisfactorily  explain,  the  things  laid  to  his  charge. 
Under  such  a  rule  who  would  be  safe?  Even  the  secular  law 
is  of  a  more  Christian  character  thun  this.  In  cases  of  the 
grossest  felonies,  our  courts,  are  prone  to  caution  jurors,  against 
allowing  their  judgment,  to  be  swayed  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
prisoner,  by  "  rumors,  publication  in  newspapers,"  or  other 
extraneous  appliances,  and  to  enjoin  them,  to  give  to  him  the 
benefit  of  every  doubt ;  observing  in  its  strictest  sense,  the 
humane  maxim,  the  boast  of  the  Common  Law,  that  the  ac- 
cused is  entitled  to  be  considered  innocent,  until  he  is  proved 
guilty.  It  would  hardly  seem  possible,  that  some  of  the  highest 
dignitaries  of  our  Church,  a  Church  of  charity  and  forbearance, 
would  desire  to  reverse  this  maxim  ;  and  yet,  the  course  pro- 
posed to  you,  by  your  right  reverend  brethren,  proposes  no 
less." 

The  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio,  with  an  unques- 
tionable right,  upon  the  hj^pothesis  now  made,  to  present  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  if  they  believed  they  were  bound  to  do 
so,  under  all  the  circumstances,  by  their  vows  of  consecration, 
have  no  right  to  make  his  presentment  dependent  on  the 
failure,  to  make  such  disproof  or  explanation,  or  make  it  satis- 
factorily to  them,  the  alternative  proposed  being,  either  a  pre- 
sentment made  by  the  Convention,  or  sufficient  reason  assigned 


23 

by  the  Convention,  why  it  is  not  merited  ;  or  else  the  three 
communicating  Bishops,  themselves,  to  institute  a  trial  accord- 
ing to  the  canon  of  the  General  Convention  ;  in  one  word,  the 
Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio,  have  no  right  in  any 
form  or  shape,  much  less  in  the  form  and  shape  adopted  by 
them,  to  dictate  to  the  diocese  of  New  Jersey,  and  its  Bishop, 
under  the  enforcement  of  a  threat,  a  course  of  action,  to  be 
pur-ued  by  them.  This  is  the  acme  of  the  wrong.  The 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey  is  to  call  a  "  Special  Convention,"  to 
investigate  the  charges  made  against  him  ;  and  that  Conven- 
tion are  to  make  the  investigation,  in  exact  accordance  with 
the  mind  and  will  of  these  three  Bishops.  Or,  else  they  will 
present  him.  To  avoid  a  presentment,  he  is  to  admit  that  he 
is  afraid  to  be  presented.  To  shield  their  Bishop  from  pre- 
sentment, the  Convention  must  admit  their  fear  of  the  results 
of  the  presentment.  Could  it  be  believed,  that  any  Bishop,  or 
that  any  Convention,  could  be  so  driven  ?  Most  certainly,  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey  cannot  be. 

Will  it  be  said,  that  all  that  was  designed,  was  to  advise? 
Why  the  necessity  of  just  three  Bishops,  to  advise  a  brother? 
Why  spend  the  time,  from'  September  22d,  1851,  to  January 
15th,  1852,  in  the  pursuit  of  a  third  Bishop,  merely  to  give 
advice  ?  Why  give  advice  in  an  official  form,  and  with  official 
signatures?  Why  give  advice,  with  the  enforcement  of  a 
threat?  Above  all,  if  the  sole  object  were  advice,  how  comes 
it  that  the  Bishop  of  Ohio,  writes  to  the  Bishop  of  Virginia, 
on  the  15th  of  January,  1852 :  "  You  are  aware,  that  I 
was  applied  to,  long  since,  in  connection  with  Bishop  Burgess 
and  yourself,  to  take  into  consideration,  certain  serious  charges, 
preferred  against  Bishop  Doane,  by  a  respectable  layman  of 
his  Diocese,  loith  reference  to  his  being  presented  for  trial." 

Or,  is  it  said  that  the  communication  from  the  Bishops  of 
Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio,  was  private,  to  the  Bishop  of  New 
Jersey?  That  its  publicity  is  his  act,  and  not  theirs  ?  How 
does  it  come  to  pass,  then,  that  the  alternatives  which  they 
propose  are  both  of  them,  public,  solemn,  world-resounding 
acts:  to  call  a  special  convention  of  his  own  Diocese,  for  the 
investigation  of  his  conduct,  that  they  may  present  him,  or 
show  why,  he  should  not  be  presented  ;  or  else,  themselves, 
to  institute  a  trial  ?     And  these  are  private  acts  ! 

"  It  were  a  delicate  stratagem,  to  shoe 
"  A  troop  of  horse  with  felt." 

But,  if  the  letter  of  the  Bishops  was  a  private  letter,  how 
came  its  tenor  to  be  known,  and  its  proposals  talked  of,  every 
where,  throughout   the  land,  before  the  Bishop  o    New  Jersey 


24 

had  received  it?  How  came  it  to  be  matter  of  public  remark, 
in  Washington,  in  January,  that  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  was 
to  be  tried  ?  How  came  a  traveller  from  the  South-West,  to 
learn,  in  one  of  our  remotest  western  dioceses,  in  December, 
that  such  a  letter  was  in  progress  to  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey? 
How  came  it  to  be  familiar,  in  an  Eastern  diocese,  that  the 
Bishop  of  Maine,  was  committed  for  such  a  movement  ?  How 
was  it  on  the  lips  of  light  and  trifling  talkers,  in  the  city  of 
Trenton,  in  September,  that  every  thing  was  all  arranged,  three 
Bishops  secured,  and  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  marked  for 
ruin?  Was  it  a  private  letter,  to  the  Bishop,  not  received 
until  February  2d,  that  gave  wind  to  all  these  rumors  ? 

But  it  is  said,  and  that  by  friendly  mouths,  sometimes,  why 
should  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  not  desire  an  investigation  ? 
Is  it  in  proof  that  he  does  not?  Has  he  yet  shunned  it?  Has 
he  showed  himself  unready  to  confront  it?  That  he  has  not 
sought  it  is  the  truth.  The  action  of  the  Convention  of  1849, 
within  three  months  of  any  claimed  occasion,  might  well  be 
taken,  as  the  starting  point  of  his  assurance,  that  investigation 
was  not  needed.  And  the  progress  of  his  diocese,  the  patron- 
age of  his  Institutions,  the  perfect  unanimity  of  his  parish,  and 
the  unfaltering  confidence  of  the  community  in  which  he  lives, 
and  the  hundreds,  everywhere,  who  honor  him  as  friends,  have 
re-assured  that  strong  assurance.  As  soon  as  he  was  apprised 
of  the  intended  introduction  of  the  resolutions,  into  that  Con- 
vention, he  required  of  all  his  friends,  to  urge  their  introduc- 
tion. When  introduced  he  threw  no  hindrance  in  the  way  of 
their  unlimited  discussion,  and  unhindered  issue.  At  no  suc- 
ceeding moment,  has  he  held  himself  other  than  ready,  to  an- 
swer any  question,  or  further  any  inquiry,  that  any  one  might 
ask,  or  institute.  And,  when,  for  the  first  time,  on  the  second 
day  of  February,  the  accusations  against  him,  took,  to  his  eye, 
the  aspect  of  responsibility,  he  threw  them  all  before  the  world, 
with  a  reply ;  which,  as  more  than  a  hundred  letters,  through 
the  length  and  breadth  of  all  the  land,  from  men,  whose  names 
are  honor,  influence,  integrity,  bear  unsolicited  and  unexpected 
attestation,  entirely  meet  the  case.  This,  surely,  has  no  look 
of  shrinking  from  publicity,  or  fearing  an  investigation.  But 
to  invite  it  is  another  thing.  Others  may  be  accused,  as  he 
has  been.  Others,  that  have  not  have  had,  from  God,  the  gra- 
cious gift,  to  stand  and  bear,  as  he  has  stood  and  borne.  Others, 
who  as  unquestionable,  as  he  is,  in  integrity,  might  be  more 
easily  alarmed  ;  and  driven,  by  violence,  against  the  wall.  He 
stands,  for  all  such  persons.  No  precedent  of  his  shall  ever 
peril  them.  For  them,  mere  than  for  himself,  by  far,  his  answer 
is,  to  whosoever  will,  if  you   desire  investigation,  come  and 


25 

make  it !  Made,  in  a  canonical  way ;  made  in  a  christian 
spirit ;  made,  as  humani  y  will  sanction  it,  he  meets  it,  in  a 
moment ;  and  leaves  God  to  guard  the  right. 
_  Dearly  Beloved,  the  Clergy  and  the  Laity  of  this  Conven- 
tion, your  Bishop  was  a  man  before  he  was  your  Bishop  ;  and 
is,  yet.  He  has  been  grievously  assaulted  ;  and,  in  the  fear 
and  strength  of  God,  he  has  protested,  and  resisted.  On  the 
ground  which  he  has  taken,  as  he  believes,  impregnably,  with  the 
testimony  of  a  good  conscience,  and  with  the  avalanche  of  at- 
testation which  has  rushed  in,  in  his  behalf,  he  might,  so  far  as 
he  himself,  his  children,  and  his  name,  can  be  concerned,  rest 
well  contented.  But,  that  he  is  your  Bishop,  is  more  to  him, 
than  that  he  is  a  man.  Therefore  the  call  of  this  Convention. 
Therefore  your  presence.  Therefore  this  statement  of  the 
case.  It  has  been  made  fearlessly,  but  charitably.  It  has 
been  made  in  God's  name,  and  for  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ. 
He  stands  by  it  now.  He  humbly  hopes  for  grace,  to  stand 
by  it,  when  he  shall  stand,  before  his  Saviour-Judge. 

And,  now,  the  matter  is  with  you.  You  have  your  duties 
and  your  rights  as  well  as  he.  You  know  your  duties,  and 
you  know  your  rights.  Your  rights  you  will  maintain  :  your 
duties  you  will  discharge.  I  exhort  you  to  firmness  and  deci- 
sion, as  becomes  men,  entrusted  with  the  "  Ark  of  God's 
magnificent  and  awful  cause."  I  exhort  you  to  modera- 
tion, to  forbearance,  to  forgiveness,  as  sinners  whom  the  blood 
of  Jesus  has  redeemed.  In  all  humility,  I  ask  for  you,  the 
presence  and  the  power  of  the  Divine  and  Holy  Spirit.*  In  all 
affection,  I  commend  you  to  the  guidance  and  protection  of 
the  Father  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  "  The  God 
of  peace,  who  brought  again  from  the  dead  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep,  through  the  blood  of 
the  everlasting  covenant,  make  you  perfect  in  every  good 
work,  to  do  His  will ;  working  in  you  that  which  is  well  pleas- 
ing in  His  sight,  through  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  be  glory  for 
ever  and  ever.     Amen." 

G.  W.  DOANE. 
Riverside,  17th  March,  1852. 


20 

Judge  Ogden. — Mr.  President :  That  the  important  duties  now 
devolving  upon  this  Council  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  may  be 
discharged  dispassionately,  understanding^,  aud  in  order,  I  offer 
for  adoption  thejbllowing  resolution  : 

Resolved:  That  the  call  of  the  Bishop  for  this  Convention,  be  re- 
ferred to  a  Committee  of  five  presbyters  and  five  lay  delegates,  to 
be  selected  by  ballot  upon  a  vote  by  orders,  jipon  open  nomina- 
tions, to  report  resolutions  for  the  consideration  and  action  of  the 
Convention. 

The  resolution  was  seconded  and  adopted. 

The  Committee  was  composed  of  the  Rev.  E.  D.  Barry,  Rev. 
Clarkson  Dunn,  Rev.  Jas.  A.  Williams,  Rev.  Saml.  L.  Southard) 
and  the  Rev.  John  S.  Kidney  ;  also  of  Judge  Carpenter,  Hon.  J.  L. 
Miller,  D.  B.  Ryal,  Capt.  Engle,  and  Mr.  A.  C.  Livingston. 

The  Convention  then  adjourned  for  one  hour. 

When  the  Convention  assembled  after  the  recess,  the  above 
named  Committee  reported  the  following  resolutions  : 

Whereas,  The  Right  Rev.  William  Meade,  Bishop  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  Virginia  ;  the  Right  Rev.  George 
Burgess,  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  Maine,  and 
the  Right  Rev.  Charles  P.  Mcllvaine,  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  Ohio,  did  address  to  the  Right  Rev.  the  Bishop  of 
this  Diocese,  a  letter,  bearing  date  the  22d  day  of  September,  1851, 
and  delivered  on  the  2d  of  February,  1852. 

And  Whereas  the  said  Right  Rev.  Bishops  do  state  therein, 
"  that  they  have  received,  from  certain  lay  members  of  the  Church 
in  the  diocese  of  New  Jersey,  a  communication,  in  which  they  are 
called  upon  to  determine  whether  it  may  be  proper  to  institute  a 
trial  according  to  the  Canon  of  the  General  Convention  provided 
for  that  purpose  ;  and  that  such  is  the  character  and  number  of 
the  charges  contained  therein,  that  they  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to 
decline  the  call  thus  made,  unless  the  object  can  be  obtained  in 
some  other  way." 

And,  Whereas,  the  said  Right  Rev.  Bishops  do  in  such  letter  de- 
clare their  opinion  to  be  that,  "  it  is  only  when  a  Diocesan  Con- 
vention refuses  to  institute  inquiry,  or  neglects  to  do  it  for  too 
long  a  period,  or  performs  the  duty  unfaithfully,  that  the  Bishops 
can  be  reasonably  expected  to  interfere." 

And  Whereas,  the  said  Right  Rev.  Bishops  do  call  upon  the  Bishop 
of  this  Diocese,  as  the  only  way  of  obtaining  the  object,  other 
than  a  presentment  by  them,  that  "  he  have  without  delay  a  special 
convention,  for  the  purpose  of  a  full  investigation  of  all  that  has 
been,  or  may  be  laid  to  his  charge,  whether  in  the  document  trans- 
mitted to  them,  or  otherwise." 

And,  Whereas,  the  Bishop  of  this  Diocese,  did,  by  a  document 


27 

bearing  date  the  2d  of  February,  1852,  refuse  to  pursue  the  course 
thus  pointed  out,  and  did  protest  against  the  action  of  the  said  Right 
Rev.  Bishops,  "  as  an  aggression  on  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey, 
as  an  invasion  of  his  sacred  rights,  and  as  a  dictation  to  pursue  a 
course  marked  out  to  him  and  his  Convention, 

Therefore,  Resolved,  that  the  refusal  of  the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  of 
this  Diocese  to  call  a  special  Convention,  for  such  purposes,  at  the 
instance  of  the  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine,  and  Ohio,  meets  the 
entire  approbation  of  this  Convention,  it  being  in  conformity  with 
Ecclesiastical  law,  a  proper  assertion  of  Episcopal  jurisdiction, 
and  a  just  vindication  of  the  rights  and  dignity  of  the  Diocese  and 
Convention  of  New  Jersey ;  and,  that  the  official  action  of  those 
Right  Rev.  Bishops  in  the  premises,  is,  in  the  judgment  of  this 
body,  unwarranted  by  any  canon,  law,  or  usage  of  the  Church. 

Resolved,  That,  in  view  of  the  unanimous  action  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  this  Diocese  in  1849,  and  of  all  that  has  since  occui-red  in 
reference  to  the  subject  matter  of  the  alleged  charges  against  our 
Bishop,  this  Convention  has  entire  confidence  in  the  uprightness  of 
character  and  purity  of  intention  which  have  actuated  him  during 
his  Episcopate. 

Resolved,  That,  while  the  Bishop  has  always  heretofore,  and  in 
his  address  this  day,  avowed  his  willingness  to  meet  an  investiga- 
tion of  any  charges  duly  made  and  presented,  and  while  we  affirm 
with  entire  confidence,  in  behalf  of  the  Convention  of  this  Diocese, 
that  it  ever  has  been  ready  to  make  such  investigation,  yet,  that 
this  body  feels  no  hesitation  in  expressing  its  decided  opinion,  that 
the  best  interests  of  the  Diocese  and  of  the  Church  at  large, 
require  no  such  proceedings. 

Judge  Carpenter  said — As  one  of  the  Committee  who  have  pre- 
sented the  Report,  it  may  be  proper  for  me  to  state,  in  moving  its 
adoption,  the  scope  of  the  resolutions.  The  resolutions  based 
upon  the  Preamble  are  three. 

The  first,  it  will  be  perceived,  affirms,  as  the  sense  of  this  Con- 
vention, that  the  Bishop  of  this  Diocese  was  right  in  refusing  to 
obey  the  demand  of  the  three  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine,  and 
Ohio,  who  urged  upon  him  the  call  of  a  Special  Convention.  He 
said,  that  the  Bishop  was  perfectly  justified  in  refusing  to  accede 
to  what  was  urged  upon  him  by  the  three  Bishops.  They  had  in 
their  letter  assumed  a  prima  facie  case  of  guilt;  and  they  made 
this  assumption  the  basis  of  their  action.  This  idea  of  guilt  seems 
to  pervade  the  whole  letter.  Acting  upon  this  unwarranted  assump- 
tion, these  Bishops  prescribed  to  our  Bishop  and  to  this  Conven- 
tion a  particular  mode  of  action — in  fact  a  trial.  For  this  we 
believe  they  had  no  warrant  in  any  canon,  law,  or  usage  of  the 
Church. 

The  second  expresses  it  as  the  sense  of  this  Convention,  that 
notwithstanding  the  rumors  which  have  been  spread  abroad  with 
so  much  industry,  from  so  many  quarters,  this  Convention  has 


28 

entire  confidence  in  the  purity  of  intention  of  our  Bishop.  The 
third,  that  the  Conventions  of  New  Jersey,  have  always  been,  and 
always  will  be  ready — notwithstanding  their  confidence  in  the 
purity  of  his  intentions — to  make  proper  inquiry  when  specific 
charges  are  made ;  and  it  expresses  also  as  the  sense  of  this  Con- 
vention, that  the  Bishop  will  be  always  ready,  as  he  has  always 
been  ready,  to  meet  them. 

He  said,  unless  a  division  of  the  question  should  be  requested, 
he  would  move  the  adoption  of  the  preamble  and  resolutions. 

Having  called  for  the  reading  of  the  resolutions  separately — 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Rankin  spoke  upon  the  first,  as  follows: — 

Right  Reverend  Father  in  God. — The  resolution  which  has  just 
been  read,  embraces,  as  I  think,  two  propositions.  First,  that  the 
action  of  the  three  Bishops  in  the  premises,  is  an  official  action — 
and  next,  that  this  their  action  is  in  violation  of  the  fundamental 
principle  of  Diocesan  independence.  And  although  it  may  seem  like 
an  attempt  to  "gild  refined  gold,"  to  add  anything  to  the  maate\,ly 
argument  in  support  of  these  propositions,  in  the  address  which 
was  delivered  at  the  opening  of  the  Convention ;  yet,  as  a  Presby- 
ter of  this  Diocese,  I  feel  that  it  is  my  duty  to  state  briefly, 
the  grounds  on  which  I  will  support  this  resolution.  That  the 
action  of  the  three  Bishops  is  to  be  regarded  as  official,  is  evident, 
I  think,  from  these  considerations.  First,  from  the  fact  that  three 
■ — the  number  necessary  by  the  canon,  for  the  presentment  of  a 
Bishop — has  been  chosen.  No  more.  No  less.  Why,  if  the  action 
were  unofficial,  should  such  a  choice  be  made  ?  And  why,  if  this 
letter  were  simply  a  letter  of  friendly  advice,  shoidd  it  have  been 
subscribed,  not  by  the  signers,  individually,  but  as  their  joint  act? 
Again,  it  bears  an  official  character  in  the  opening  sentence  It 
is  written  from  Bishops,  as  such,  to  a  Bishop,  as  such.  "We,  the 
undersigned,  your  brethren  in  the  Episcopate" — and  again,  "it  is 
also  our  duty,  as  your  brethren,  and  as  Bishops  of  the  Church" — 
and,  as  if  to  remove  all  doubt  as  to  the  character  of  the  commu- 
nication, it  is  signed  by  them  in  their  official  capacity,  as  Bishops, 
respectively,  of  Virginia,  Maine,  and  Ohio.  I  am  compelled, 
therefore,  to  believe,athat  this  letter  is,  and  was  designed  to  be, 
an  official  communication,  and  the  Church  is  now  called  upon  to 
behold  the  strange  and  almost  unprecedented  spectacle,  of  Bishops 
dictating  to  a  brother  Bishop,  as  independent  as  themselves,  a 
course  of  action,  such  as  they  direct,  and  this,  however  it  may  be 
veiled  by  the  courtesies  of  language,  under  the  enforcement  of  a 
threat. 

But  the  point  on  which  I  wish  to  speak  more  fully,  is  the  fun- 
damental principle  of  Diocesan  independence,  which  has  been 
assailed  by  this  official  action.  And  as  it  is  of  the  first  importance 
to  have  a  correct  idea  of  the  constitution  of  the  different  branches 
of  the  One  Holy  Catholic  Church,  I  will  lay  before  the  Conven- 


29 

tion  the  testimony  drawn  from  Holy  Scripture  and  Ecclesiastical 
History. 

It  should  never  be  forgotten,  that  these  are  the  tests  to  which 
we  should  refer  these  subjects,  and  that  we  are  never  safe  when 
we  violate  the  spirit  which  has  run  continuously  throughout  the 
Church's  history.  In  accordance  with  that  spirit  I  hold  that  every 
Diocese,  complete  in  its  organization,  with  its  Bishop,  Clergy  and 
Laity,  is  an  independent  spiritual  sovereignty,  possessing  within 
itself  full  power  for  all  purposes,  legislative,  judicial  and  execu- 
tive, and  this,  not  from  any  human  source,  not  from  power  received 
in  any  way  from  the  people,  but  by  virtue  of  a  Divine  organization 
and  an  authority  derived  from  Jesus  Christ,  the  great  Head  of  the 
Church.  By  virtue  of  this  inherent  power,  each  Diocese  is  com- 
plete within  itself,  and  independent  of  all  others,  except  so  far  as 
they  may  be  held  together  in  the  terms  of  a  mutual  compact 
and  the  bonds  of  a  common  faith.  It  was  so  with  Timothy  at 
Ephesus.  It  was  so  with  Titus  at  Crete.  It  was  so  with  Epaph- 
roditus  at  Phillippi,  and  it  is  so  with  the  Bishop  and  the  Diocese 
of  New  Jersey. 

This  independence  has  been  asserted  and  defended  from  the 
beginning,  and,  although  our  Bishop  has  given  us  the  decrees  of 
the  first  general  council,  held  at  Nice  in  A.  D.  325,  yet  I  would 
ask  the  indulgence  of  the  Convention,  while  I  present  additional 
authorities  from  the  Councils  of  the  Church. 

By  the  14th  of  the  Apostolical  Canons,  (supposed  by  Bishop 
Beveridge  to  date  from  the  second  century),  it  is  declared  that  "  a 
Bishop  is  not  to  be  allowed  to  leave  his  own  limits  and  pass  over 
into  another,  although  he  may  be  pressed  by  many  to  do  so,  unless 
thei'e  be  some  proper  cause  constraining  him  ;  as  if  he  can  confer 
some  greater  benefit  upon  the  persons  of  that  place,  in  the  word 
of  godliness,  and  this  must  be  done,  not  of  his  own  accord,  but  by 
the  judgment  of  many  Bishops,  and  at  their  earnest  exhortations." 

The  85th  of  these  Canons,  repeats  the  same  injunction,  under 
the  penalty  of  deposition. 

The  17th  Canon  of  the  Synod  of  Aries,  A.  D.  314,  forbids  one 
Bishop  to  trample  upon  another. 

The  13th  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Antioch,  A.  D.  341,  enacts,  that 
no  Bishop  shall  dare  to  pass  from  one  province  to  another,  and 
ordain  any  persons  in  the  churches  to  the  dignity  of  officiating. 
And  if,  without  a  written  invitation  from  the  metropolitan,  and 
other  Bishops  of  the  country  into  which  he  comes,  he  shall  pro- 
ceed disorderly  to  the  ordination  of  any  persons,  and  to  the 
regulation  of  Ecclesiastical  matters  which,  do  not  belong  to  him,  the 
things  which  are  done  by  him  shall  be  annulled,  and  he  himself 
suffer  the  punishment  proper  for  his  insubordination  and  unrea- 
sonable attempts,  being  deposed  forthwith  by  the  Holy  Synod. 

The  22d  Canon  of  the  same  Council  repeats  this  injunction. 

If  it  were  not  too  great  a  tax  upon  the  time  of  the  Convention, 


30 

I  might  go  on  to  cite  authorities  from  the  Councils  of  Sardica,  A.  D. 
347,  Constantinople,  A.  D.  381,  Ephesus,  A.  D.  431,  and  Chalcedon, 
A.  D.  451,  all  confirming  the  principle  which  has  been  asserted, 
of  the  inherent  independence  of  every  Diocese. 

But  as  our  union  with  the  early  Church,  and  our  obligation  to 
conform  to  the  spirit  of  its  legislation,  comes  to  us  through  the 
medium  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church,  it  will  be  of  particular  inte- 
rest to  us,  to  know  how  steadily  the  principle  we  are  now  main- 
taining, has  been  defined  and  defended  there.  I  will  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention,  therefore,  to  the  action  of  two  Synods 
in  our  mother  Church,  which  bears  directly  on  the  point  before  us. 

In  a  Synod  held  at  Hertford,  A.  D.  673,  under  Theodore,  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  the  second  Canon  which  was  enacted,  enjoins 
that  no  Bishop  intrude  into  the  Diocese  of  another,  but  be  satisfied 
with  the  government  of  the  people  committed  unto  him,  and  this 
on  the  authority  of  the  decrees  of  the  early  councils  of  the  Church. 

The  Synod  held  at  Cealchythe,  under  Wilfred,  A.  D.  815,  passed 
two  canons,  the  5th  and  11th,  the  first  of  which  asserts  the  primi- 
tive independence  of  Bishops,  and  the  last,  acting  upon  that  prin- 
ciple, enacts  that  it  be  unlawful  for  any  Bishop  to  invade  the 
Diocese  of  another,  or  to  draw  any  ministration  to  himself  which 
belongs  to  another;  and  if  any  one  transgress  in  this  respect,  let 
him  make  satisfaction  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  Arch- 
bishop, unless  he  be  willing  first  to  be  reconciled  to  the  proper 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese. 

These  canons  are  remarkable,  as  showing  the  basis  on  which 
all  ecclesiastical  legislation  should  rest.  They  give  as  their 
authority,  the  action  of  the  early  Councils  of  the  Chui'ch.  And 
it  should  be  observed,  that  this  was  fully  recognized,  even  where 
the  Papacy  had  made  her  earlier  strides  in  the  course  of  usurpa- 
tion, which  resulted  in  her  unjust  supremacy. 

It  will  be  seen  from  these  enactments  that  the  principle  of  Dio- 
cesan independence,  which  has  been  assailed  in  the  instance  of  New 
Jersey,  is  vital  to  the  well-being  of  the  Church.  It  lies  at  the 
foundation  of  our  ecclesiastical  organization.  And  the  care  with 
which  it  has  been  guarded  in  the  past,  should  teach  us  to  resist 
with  the  most  watchful  anxiety,  and  to  repel  the  first  approaches  to 
an  intrusion  upon  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us  free. 
Hence  it  is,  that  the  question  now  before  us,  is  more  than  per- 
sonal, with  the  Bishop,  and  more  than  local,  with  the  Diocese  of 
New  Jersey.  It  is  one  of  principle.  It  underlies  the  frame- 
work of  all  the  churches  in  this  country.  Not  only  does  it  come 
to  us  with  the  support  of  antiquity,  we  find  it  as  clearly  recog- 
nized in  the  successive  steps  which  led  to  the  union  of  the  churches 
in  a  General  Convention,  and  the  establishment  of  a  constitution 
for  their  government.  There  is  perhaps  no  more  striking  feature 
in  the  history  of  the  formation  of  that  instrument,  than  the  scru- 
pulous watchfulness  which  the   churches  in  the  several  States 


31 

exercised  upon  this  point.  It  was  guarded  with  a  jealous  care.  It 
was  asserted  in  the  "  fundamental  principles''  which  were  adopted 
as  the  basis  of  their  consultations,  and  was  finally  embodied  iu 
the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Church.  And  it  is 
this  which  has  been  assailed  by  the  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Ohio, 
and  Maine,  in  their  official  action  towards  the  Bishop  and  the 
Diocese  of  New  Jersey. 

I  have  said,  Right  Reverend  Father,  that  this  their  action,  is 
almost  unprecedented.  It  is  without  a  precedent  in  the  history  of 
the  churches  in  this  country ;  but  it  is  not  without  a  precedent 
in  the  history  of  the  Church  at  large.  Sin  runs  in  C37cles.  The 
errors  and  corruptions  of  an  earlier,  are  reproduced  in  substance, 
in  a  later  age.  And  we  find  in  the  aggressions  of  the  Papacy,  the 
counterpart  of  an  aggression  here.  There  is  an  instance  so  nearly 
parallel  to  the  case  before  us,  that  I  need  hardly  ask  the  indul- 
gence of  the  Convention  while  I  point  it  out.  There  is  this  differ- 
ence. Two  hundred  years  had  passed  before  the  Church  of  Rome 
had  ventured  to  attempt  what  less  than  a  single  century  has  wit- 
nessed now.  We  have  not  lived  under  our  present  ecclesiastical 
confederacy  a  hundred  years.  And  yet  the  Synod  of  New  Jersey 
has  been  assembled  to  consider  a  case  like  that  which  brought  the 
Synod  of  the  Church  of  Carthage  together,  under  St.  Cyprian,  its 
Bishop,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  255,  to  take  action  against  Ste- 
phen, Bishop  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  It  is  true,  the  occasions  were 
not  the  same.  It  was  not  the  action  of  a  Bishop  against  a  brother 
Bishop  on  the  representations  of  four  laymen.  But  it  was  an  act 
of  Episcopal  dictation,  and  dictation  under  the  enforcement  of  a 
threat.  There,  as  here,  a  Synod  was  convened.  There,  the  Bishop 
of  Carthage,  had  at  the  opening  of  the  Synod  set  forth  a  clear  and 
manly  statement  of  the  case,  as  here  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey 
has  laid  before  his  Convention  the  action  of  the  intrudiug  bishops. 
There,  there  was  a  fearless  vindication  of  the  Church's  independence, 
in  language  which  will  remind  you  of  a  vindicature  no  less  fearless. 

"  Let  us  every  one,"  said  the  noble  Cyprian,  "  give  our  opinion 
of  this  matter,  judging  no  man,  nor  expelling  any  from  our  com- 
munion, who  shall  think  otherwise?  For  no  one  of  us  makes 
himself  Bishop  of  Bishops,  or  compels  his  colleagues  by  tyrannical 
terror  to  a  necessity  of  complying,  forasmuch  as  every  Bishop,  ac- 
cording to  the  liberty  and  power  that  is  granted  him,  is  free  to 
act  as  he  sees  fit;  and  can  no  more  be  judged  by  others  than  he 
can  judge  them.  But  let  us  all  expect  the  judgment  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  only  hath  power  both  to  invest  us  with  the 
government  of  His  Church  and  to  pass  sentence  upon  our  actions." 

You  will  not  need  a  comment  on  the  parallel.  Nor  can  you  fail 
to  see  how  clearly  the  course  which  our  Bishop  has  pursued,  is  in 
harmony  with  ecclesiastical  precedent,  and  marked  by  the  spirit 
of  the  martyred  Cyprian. 

I  congratulate  the  Synod  of  New  Jersey ;  and  as  a  Presbyter  of 


this  Diocese,  and  a  member  of  her  Synod,  I  am  thankful,  that  she 
has,  as  Carthage  had  before  her,  a  Cyprian  to  assert  and  maintain 
her  rights  and  his  own.     I  move  the  adoption  of  this  resolution. 

Mr.  Walter  Rutherford  here  rose  and  read  the  following 
protest — [we  pi'int  this  Protest,  although  not  entered  upon  the 
Minutes.  It  is  therefore  inserted  only  as  part  of  the  debate. 
Editor  of  Banner'] — to  so  much  of  the  resolution  as  censures  the 
Bishops  of  Maine,  Virginia,  and  Ohio. 

Whereas,  a  Special  Convention  has  been  called  at  Burlington,  on 
Wednesday,  17th  of  March,  to  consider  and  express  their  judgment 
on  the  official  conduct  of  the  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio, 
as  touching  the  rights  of  the  Bishop  and  the  Diocese,  in  dictating 
a  course  of  action  to  be  pursued  by  them: 

We,  the  undersigned,  without  intending  by  this  our  action,  to 
express  any  opinion  on  the  points  alluded  to  in  the  letter  of  the 
Bishops  of  Virginia,  Ohio  and  Maine,  and  willing  at  all  times  to 
yield  all  canonical  obedience  to  the  lawful  authorities  of  the  Church 
both  in  the  United  States  and  in  the  Diocese  to  which  we  belong, 
respectfully  decline  acting  in  any  manner  on  the  special  subject 
designated  in  the  call  of  this  Convention,  for  the  following  reasons: 

I.  In  accordance  with  the  1st  article  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  we  owe  allegiance  and  obedience  to  the 
Constitution  and  Canons  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States.  In  that  branch  of  the  Church  Catholic,  Episcopacy 
is  recognized  and  established  as  the  highest  ministerial  order ;  and 
by  the  laws  of  that  Church,  if  Bishops  offend,  there  is  a  tribunal 
constituted,  consisting  as  it  should  do,  of  their  peers,  by  which 
offending  Bishops  may  be  tried;  but  it  is  nowhere  provided  that 
presbyters  and  laymen  sitting  in  a  Diocesan  Convention  have  co- 
ordinate jurisdiction  with  the  members  of  the  Episcopate  to  try 
Bishops.  A  Diocesan  Convention  can  lawfully  do  no  more  than 
prefer  charges  (if  there  be  cause,)  against  its  oivn  Bishop  ;  it  cannot 
try  him  a  fortiori;  it  can  neither  accuse  nor  try  Bishops  of  other 
dioceses.  As  sound  churchmen,  therefore,  entertaining  a  proper 
respect  for  Episcopacy,  and  willing  to  uphold  it  in  every  lawful 
exercise  of  its  authority,  we  cannot  consent  to  degrade  it  before 
the  world,  and  treat  it  with  contempt  ourselves,  by  assuming  the 
high  function  of  "  expressing  their  judgment  on  the  official  conduct 
of  Bishops."     Such  is  not  our  churchmanship. 

II.  If  the  Bishops  of  Virginia,  Ohio,  and  Maine  have  injured  the 
Bishop  of  our  Diocese,  the  latter  is  not  without  remedy.  Our 
refusal  to  act,  therefore,  (even  had  we  power  to  do  so)  will  work 
no  iujustice. 

III.  The  nature  of  the  question  at  issue,  as  set  forth  by  the 
Bishop  of  our  diocese,  in  his  published  Appeal  and  Protest,  is  such 
as  warns  us  to  caution.  We  purposely  avoid  here  the  expression 
of  any  opinion  on  the  charges  which  our  Bishop  has  published  in 
the  Appeal  and  Protest,  but  we  cannot  shut  our  eyes  to  the  fact 


33 

that  they  are  of  such  a  character  as  concerns  not  the  Diocese  of 
New  Jersey  exclusively,  but  the  whole  Church  in  the  United  States. 
We,  therefore,  leave  them  to  the  action  of  the  Bishops  of  the  whole 
Church  in  the  United  States. 

We  protest,  because  our  action  as  a  Diocesan  Convention  will 
fully  justify  similar  action  on  the  part  of  our  Christian  brethren, 
the  presbyters  and  laymen  of  the  several  dioceses  of  Virginia,  Ohio, 
and  Maine.  Diocesan  Conventions  may  then  be  called  to  censure 
us — "to  consider  and  express  their  judgment"  whether  there  was 
not  sufficient  cause  for  the  action  of  the  Bishops  of  those  dioceses 
of  which  our  Bishop  complains ;  and  thus  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey 
would  virtually  be  put  on  trial  before  the  several  Conventions,  a 
precedent  most  dangerous  would  be  established,  whereby  any  action 
of  a  Bishop,  disapproved  of  by  one  of  his  brethren,  might  be  made 
the  subject  of  inquiry  and  judgment  by  the  clergy  and  laity  of 
another  diocese.  The  harmony  and  love  which  should  exist 
between  those  of  the  same  household  would  be  interrupted,  if  not 
destroyed  ;  and  the  just  and  necessary  powers  of  the  Episcopate 
would  be  brought  into  contempt. 

For  these  reasons,  the  undersigned,  intending  no  personal  dis- 
respect thereby  to  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese,  respectfully,  but 
decidedly  protest  against  any  action  having  relation  to  the  con- 
duct of  the  three  prelates  named  in  the  summons  to  this  special 
Convention,  and  respectfully  ask  that  this  protest,  with  their  rea- 
sons, may  be  placed  upon  the  records  of  this  Convention. 

(Signed)  Walter  Rutherford, 

Bridges, 

H.  B.  Sherman. 

Senator  Miller. — I  think  it  is  out  of  order.  If  it  is  an  amend- 
ment, it  ought  to  be  presented  at  a  proper  time  ;  and,  therefore, 
it  is  now  out  of  order. 

Mr.  Walter  Rutherford. — I  being  an  humble  layman,  and  not 
a  senator,  yield  to  the  better  knowledge  of  the  gentleman,  but  think 
it  ought  to  come  in  according  to  order,  in  its  time;  and,  it  seems 
to  me,  the  best  time  is  now. 

Hon.  D.  B.  Ryall. — The  first  resolution  is  under  discussion,  and 
the  gentleman  reads  a  protest.  He  does  not  offer  it  by  way  of 
amendment.  I  take  it,  that  if  there  is  any  thing  in  that  paper, 
presented  as  an  argument,  it  might  be  discussed;  but  the  resolu- 
tion is  now  under  consideration.  And  does  the  gentleman  offer 
this  as  a  protest  against  the  first  resolution  ?  I  apprehend,  sir,  if 
there  is  any  thing  contained  in  it  against  its  adoption,  it  may  be 
ascertained  upon  a  question  of  "yeas  "  and  "  nays  "  in  its  passage. 
He  must  wait  until  the  resolution  is  adopted,  if  he  intends  to  pro- 
test against  it  as  a  minority.  What  is  a  protest?  It  is  an  objec- 
tion to  the  proceedings  of  a  majority.  Suppose  the  resolution  is 
negatived,  then  the  protest  will  be  altogether  unnecessary. 

3 


34 

Mr.  Walter  Rutherford. — The  protest  goes  as  to  the  power 
of  the  Convention  to  pass  the  resolution.  A  committee  has  been 
appointed,  it  makes  unanimously  a  report  for  the  action  of  this 
Convention,  and  we  suppose  the  members  of  the  Convention  will 
adopt  the  course  marked  out  by  their  own  committee.  My  objec- 
tion is,  that  this  Convention  has  no  canonical  power  to  entertain 
such  a  resolution  and  pass  it. 

Rev.  C.  Dunn. — I  would  ask  if  there  is  anything  in  our  resolu- 
tions, that  provides  for  one  man  stopping  the  proceedings  of  this 
Convention. 

Judge  Robeson. — I  think  it  is  the  proper  time  for  that  protest 
to  come  in ;  and  I  wish  to  express  my  views  upon  it,  to  show 
that  I  do  not  intend  to  vote  for  it  when  presented ;  but  if  it  is 
presented  at  all,  this  is  the  proper  and  only  time  it  can  be  pre- 
sented. It  goes  to  a  stoppage  of  the  whole  action  of  this  Conven- 
tion. It  is  not  a  protest  against  the  resolution,  but  against  the 
action  of  this  Convention,  and  this  is  the  proper  time  to  act  upon 
it ;  and,  therefore,  I  hope  the  gentlemen  will  let  it  come  forward, 
and  be  entered  upon  the  Minutes. 

J.  J.  Ciietwood. — If  a  protest  is  made  by  any  gentleman,  civil 
in  its  language  as  this  is,  it  ought  to  receive  a  civil  reception,  and 
kind  attention  ought  to  be  given  to  it.  But,  gentlemen,  let  us 
consider  the  consequences  of  this  thing.  If  we  listen  to  them,  we 
might  have  similar  protests  upon  other  points,  consisting  of  some 
two  or  three  pages,  which  would  keep  us  sitting  until  next  Con- 
vention, and  then  we  should  have  a  paper  which  no  one  could 
read.  I  am  entirely  opposed  to  having  it  entered  upon  the  Journal, 
although  I  shall  be  glad  if  the  gentleman  has  shown  in  his  protest, 
so  great  an  improvement  in  his  principles  of  sound  churchmanship. 

Mr.  Wakefield.  Some  gentlemen  think  it  ought  to  stop  the 
proceedings ;  but  if  I  understand  the  matter  at  all,  it  is  merely 
the  action  of  an  individual  member,  protesting  against  the  action 
of  the  majority.  I  believe  the  proper  way  is  to  allow  the  presentor 
to  put  his  protest  on  record ;  if  it  is  proper,  after  the  vote  of  the 
majority,  I  am  in  favor  of  such  a  course. 

Rev.  Mr.  Thompson,  of  Patterson. — In  regard  to  the  first  half  of 
that  resolution,  I  am  decidedly  in  favor  of  it.  I  agree  that  the  Bishop 
has  acted  right  in  refusing  to  call  a  Convention ;  but  I  confess  I 
am  rather  more  doubtful  as  to  the  second  part  of  it,  that  is,  as  far 
as  an  expression  of  oxn-  judgment  on  the  canonical  action  of  these 
three  Bishops ;  and  there  is  no  Law,  Article,  or  Canon  in  the  Con- 
stitution, which  gives  us  a  right  so  to  do.  It  is  right  that  this 
Convention  protest  against  any  prescribed  or  dictated  course  of 
action,  but  we  have  no  right  to  express  our  judgment  as  to  any 
action ;  and  in  seeking  to  do  this  we  fall  into  the  same  fault  of 
which  we  accuse  them. 

Rev.  Mr.  Boggs. — It  was  hoped  that  this    resolution  would 


35 

meet  the  views  of  all.  As  it  does  not,  I  would  offer  an  amendment 
which,  while  it  would  make  it  more  acceptable,  would  also  make 
it  stronger  than  that  for  which  it  is  substituted.  I  think  that 
a  protest  against  action,  is  stronger  than  a  mere  expression 
of  an  opinion.  It  is  a  very  important  resolution,  and  it  seems 
the  first  part  is  unanimously  approved — or  nearly  so — and  I 
would,  therefore,  offer  an  amendment  from  the  word  and,  when 
the  resolution  will  read  thus,  "and  that  this  Convention  protests 
against  any  right  of  these  Right  Reverend  Fathers,  to  prescribe  to 
this  body  any  course  of  action." 

Judge  Carpenter — The  dispute  is  one  entirely  about  words.  The 
Reverend  gentleman  from  Paterson,  agrees  with  the  Committee 
in  the  sentiment  expressed  in  the  first  part,  of  the  resolution ;  but 
the  difficulty  is  that  the  latter  part,  in  his  judgment,  goes  beyond 
our  jurisdiction,  as  it  throws  blame  upon  the  three  Bishops.  But 
it  must  be  observed  that  what  is  objected  to,  is  but  the  inference 
that  follows  from  the  proposition  asserted  in  the  first  part  of  the 
resolution.  I  think  the  whole  difficulty  arises  from  a  mistake  as 
to  the  character  of  the  resolution.  If  these  three  Bishops  have 
called  upon  the  Bishop  of  this  diocese,  and  upon  this  Convention 
to  do  something  they  have  no  right  to  call  upon  them  to  do,  un- 
doubtedly this  Convention  may  give  a  reason  why  the  Bishop  was 
right.  It  seems  to  my  mind  that  nothing  can  be  more  plain,  and 
I  think  the  objection  arises  from  a  mistaken  application  of  the 
principle  upon  which  the  gentleman  relied. 

Rev.  Mr.  Thompson. — I  do  not  think  the  gentleman  is  right  in 
his  assertions.  In  the  former  part  it  maintains  the  proper  rights 
of  the  Bishop  of  this  diocese,  and  in  the  latter  part  it  condemns 
the  action  of  the  other  Bishops.  We  have  a  right  to  do  the  first. 
If  a  man  comes  into  my  house  and  uses  abusive  language,  I  have 
a  right  to  put  him  out,  but  when  he  is  in  the  street  I  have  no 
right  to  beat  him  there.  If  we  had  this  right,  and  believe  that 
their  conduct  has  been  wrong,  we  ought  to  go  a  step  further — that 
is,  if  they  have  acted  in  an  uncanonical  manner. 

Rev.  J.  Kidney,  of  Salem. — The  last  is  the  only  point  involved 
in  the  objection,  and  if  we  consider  ourselves  aggrieved  by  the 
action  of  the  three  Bishops,  we  have  a  right  to  repel  the  aggres- 
sion. I  advocate  the  last  clause,  because  there  is  no  law  why  we 
have  not,  as  a  Convention,  the  right  to  repel  any  such  steps. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Halstead.i — I  am  in  favor  of  the  amendment,  and  I 
shall  then  vote  against  the  whole  resolution,  because  I  hold  it  to 
be  uncanonical,  and  that  this  Convention  has  no  right  to  express  an 
opinion  upon  the  action  of  the  three  Bishops,  whose  conduct  this 
Convention  was  specially  called  to  express  a  judgment  upon.  I 
hold  that  no  body  has  a  right  to  express  a  judgment,  unless  that 
body  has  the  power  to  enforce  the  judgment,  which  shall  thus  be 
expressed,  either  by  censure  or  by  some  other  mode  of  punishment. 
I  hold  that  no  body  of  men  has  a  right  to  call  before  them  and  to 


36 

try  questions  involving  the  character,  not  merely  of  citizens,  but 
of  presbyters,  of  the  first  men  in  the  land,  without  summoning 
these  people  before  them,  to  give  them  an  opportunity  of  being 
heard.  We  are  called  here  to  express  our  judgments  on  the  official 
conduct  of  these  Bishops.  I  cannot  express  my  opinion  upon  the 
official  conduct  of  Bishops  until  they  have  an  opportunity  of  being 
heard,  and  called  upon  for  their  defence.  I  have  had  some  expe- 
rience in  courts  of  justice,  and  I  never  knew  a  man,  be  he  ever  so 
ignorant  or  destitute  of  friends,  that  was  called  upon  to  account 
for  any  charge,  until  that  charge  was  read  to  him,  and  lie  was 
asked  what  he  had  to  say  in  answer  to  it.  But  it  appears  these 
Bishops  are  to  be  condemned,  and  our  judgment  expressed,  unheard. 
Where  is  the  evidence  by  which  these  Bishops  are  to  be  tried.  It 
has  not  been  read  to  us.  But  now  these  Bishops  are  to  be  judged 
by  the  Diocesan  Convention  of  New  Jersey,  without  their  having 
an  opportunity  to  reply  to  the  charge,  and  without  any  evidence  to 
show  that  they  are  guilty.  I  hold  that  this  Convention  has  no  such 
authority.  I  call  upon  the  gentleman  to  show  me  the  canon. 
There  was  not  a  single  canon  mentioned  that  applies  to  the  present 
f  ubject.  I  differ  wholly  with  the  gentleman  who  undertook  to  say 
that  because  their  hand  was  attached  to  the  letters  written  to  the 
Bishop  of  this  Diocese,  that  therefore  the  letter  must  be  official. 
It  don't  follow  at  all.  Had  they  not  a  right  to  express  their 
opinion  ?  There  has  been  no  official  action  by  the  Bishops  of 
these  three  States.  The  letter  sent  to  the  Bishop  of  this  Diocese 
was  a  private  letter,  a  perfectly  kind  and  courteous  letter.  (General 
Laughter. )  I  am  not  to  be  laughed  down ;  I  shall  express  my 
opinions  fearlessly,  and  I  do  it  upon  my  own  responsibility.  I  am 
amenable  to  my  God,  and  nobody  else.  In  my  opinion,  it  was  a 
kind  and  courteous  letter ;  and  if  they  had  not  written  it,  they 
might  have  been  censured  more  than  they  can  be  now.  The  charge 
would  then  have  been,  why  didn't  they  tell  their  brother  Bishop  that 
they  were  going  to  present  him.  They  spoke  to  him  as  a  brother 
Bishop,  they  wrote  to  him  a  private  letter,  and  they  told  him  what 
they  were  going  to  do.  They  acted,  I  say,  as  brothers  and  Chris- 
tians ;  and,  let  me  say,  that  they  did  not  act,  in  that  matter,  by 
the  advice  of  the  four  laymen.  It  was  not  at  my  instigation  that 
letter  was  written.  They  did  it  from  the  best  of  principles  ;  and 
suppose  they  erred  ?  We  are  all  human,  all  fallible,  all  liable  to 
err.  But  is  there  no  charity,  eveu  if  they  did  err?  Are  they  not 
to  have  a  good  motive  accorded  to  them  ?  You  are  not  going  to 
impute  to  them  a  good  motive,  but  to  put  the  worst  con- 
struction upon  it.  It  appears  now,  that  we  assume,  in  the  first 
place,  that  these  Bishops  acted  in  an  official  manner.  That  as- 
sumption is  not  proved,  and  we  have  no  right  to  assume  it.  Ought 
we  to  condemn  these  men  unheard  ?  Ought  we  to  presume  that 
three  Bishops,  who  have  heretofore  stood  high  in  the  Church,  have, 
out   of  pure  malice,   so  disregarded  the  Canon  Law,  that  they 


37 

have  wilfully  and  dishonorably  written  a  letter  in  their  official  capa- 
city, for  the  purpose  of  treating  with  contempt  this  Convention, 
and  infringing  upon  the  rights  of  the  Diocese. 

Can  we  apply  this  doctrine  to  ourselves  ?  I  trust  that  the  gen- 
tlemen of  this  Convention  will  oppose  an  act  of  this  kind.  Where 
is  this  to  end  ?  If  we  have  a  right  to  express  our  opinions,  have 
they  not  a  right  to  express  their  opinions  upon  our  Bishop's  con- 
duct? Precisely  the  same  right.  It  is  not  the  signature  that 
makes  the  letter  official.  They  do  not  undertake  to  do  anything 
in  their  official  capacity.  They  have  done  no  more  than,  when 
one  gentleman  writes  to  another,  and  says  you  are  doing  so  and 
so.  They  have  addressed  a  letter  to  Bishop  Doane,  and  is  it  not 
a  courteous  letter  ?  Have  we  not  a  right  to  go  and  transact  our 
business,  and  are  we  bound  in  any  way  by  the  suggestions  of  these 
Bishops  ?  Certainly  not.  It  is  unfounded  to  say  that  these  Bishops 
have  undertaken  to  dictate  to  this  Convention. 

It  appears  that  the  Committee  have  been  unanimous  upon  the 
subject;  but  for  my  own  part,  I  do  not  know  the  evidence  upon 
which  the  Committee  have  acted.  It  has  not  been  submitted  to 
me  and  the  Convention.     They  may  be  right,  and  I  wrong. 

Now,  sir,  I  perhaps  have  occupied  too  much  time  upon  this  sub- 
ject, but  I  claim  to  say  one  word  upon  the  protest.  I  believe  that 
every  member  of  every  deliberative  assembly,  has  a  perfect  right 
to  express  either  orally  or  by  writing,  his  dissent  to  any  resolu- 
tion brought  before  that  body;  and  if  it  is  put  forward  as  a  pro- 
test, either  written  or  orally,  it  is  the  same  thing.  I  believe  it 
was  offered  at  the  proper  time,  notwithstanding  an  honorable 
Senator  seemed  to  think  different.  How  is  the  protest  to  come 
up,  when  the  subject  matter  of  protest  has  been  passed  upon,  and 
another  resolution  taken  up.  I  submit,  therefore,  it  was  offered  at 
the  proper  time,  and  ought  to  go  upon  the  Minutes,  and  that  the 
gentleman  is  entitled  to  make  the  protest. 

Mr.  Wakefield. — Mr.  President:  It  seems  to  me,  that  this  de- 
bate may  be  confined  to  a  smaller  compass.  The  resolution  af- 
firms that  the  refusal  of  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  to  call  a  special 
Convention  for  certain  purposes,  at  the  instance  of  the  Bishops  of 
Virginia,  Maine  and  Ohio,  meets  our  entire  approbation — is  in 
conformity  with  Ecclesiastical  law,  a  just  vindication  of  Episcopal 
jurisdiction,  and  the  rights  and  dignity  of  this  diocese  ;  and  that 
the  official  action  of  the  three  Bishops  is  unwarranted  by  any  canon, 
law,  or  usage  of  the  Church.  I  go  for  the  resolution  as  it  is;  Let 
us  examine  it  for  a  moment,  and  the  arguments  of  gentlemen 
against  it. 

It  is  said  the  letter  of  the  three  Bishops  is  not  official,  but  merely 
a  kind  and  loving  letter  of  advice.  It  seems  to  me,  sir,  that  no  one 
can  make  a  mistake  in  this  matter.  The  three  Bishops,  armed  with 
the  power  of  presentation,  and  holding  in  their  hands  the  charges 
and  specifications  of  the  four  laymen,  prepared  for  that  purpose, 


38 

send  then*  letter  founded  upon  those  charges,  to  the  accused  under 
their  official  hands.  They  evidently  do  this  as  preliminary  to  a 
presentment,  as  the  first  step  in  their  course.  It  is  only  in  their 
official  character  that  they  have  any  connection  with  the  matter  at 
all.  If  they  do  not  act  as  Bishops,  they  have  no  right  to  act  in 
the  matter  in  any  capacity.  The  letter  has  every  mark  of  its  offi- 
cial character  on  its  face.  It  has  ofiicial  signatures — it  has  the 
"  three"  requisite  for  a  presentment,  and  is  accompanied  with 
technical  charges,  and  an  implied  threat,  the  import  of  which  no 
one  can  for  a  moment  misunderstand.  The  letter  is  also  dictato- 
rial. It  not  only  advises,  but  urges  a  particular  course.  The 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey  and  this  Convention  are  directed  to  take  a 
particular  course.  The  Bishop  must  call  a  special  Convention 
without  delay — must  see  that  the  Convention  appoint  an  impartial 
and  intelligent  committee  of  inquiry,  and  that  that  committee  are 
instructed  in  r«  certain  way.  AH  this  he  must  compel  this  Con- 
vention to  do,  and  unless  the  three  Bishops  should  be  then  satis- 
fied with  the  result,  they  would  present  him.  It  urges  a  particu- 
lar course  under  a  threat  of  presentment — and  reversing  the  rules 
of  the  common  law,  calls  on  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey  to  disprove 
the  charges,  which  have  never  yet  been  proved  against  him.  The 
whole  letter  from  beginning  to  end,  is  manifestly  official  and  dicta- 
torial. It  is  an  interference  in  the  diocese  of  another  Bishop,  and 
with  the  rights  and  dignity  of  this  Convention. 

Again  :  Such  interference  is  uncanonical  and  unconstitutional. 
The  4th  article  in  the  Constitution  of  the  P.  E.  Church  of  the  U. 
S.,  declares,  "  that  every  bishop  of  this  church  shall  confine  the 
exercise  of  his  episcopal  office  to  his  proper  diocese,  &c."  This  is 
but  a  reiteration  of  the  canon  law  of  all  antiquity.  The  same 
rule  is  to  be  found  in  the  canons  and  usages  of  the  Church  from 
the  earliest  times  to  the  present  moment,  and  is  especially  a  rule 
of  the  Protestant  Church.  The  general  rule  is  non-interference, 
and  the  only  exception  to  it  is  the  right  to  present.  Beyond  the 
constitutional  right  to  present,  the  three  Bishops  have  no  power  or 
authority,  under  any  canon,  law,  or  usage,  to  interfere  with  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  or  this  diocese.  Instead  of  doing  the  only 
thing  permitted  them  by  the  constitution,  they  take  a  different  one, 
urging  a  special  Convention  for  a  special  purpose.  The  course 
of  the  three  bishops  is  therefore  uncanonical  and  unconstitu- 
tional. 

But  Gentlemen  say,  we  must  not  say  so  in  this  resolution,  be- 
cause that  would  be  trying  the  three  Bishops.  They  assume  that 
this  is  a  trial,  and  argue  at  large  that  this  Convention  cannot  try 
the  three  Bishops,  and  pass,  and  execute  judgment  upon  them. 
This  argument  is  unnecessary — no  one  pretends  that  we  have  such 
power.  This  is  not  a  trial ;  it  is  simply  the  expression  of  the 
opinion  of  this  Convention.  The  word  "judgment "  is  used  in 
the  resolution,  but  that  word  has  two  senses — the  technical,  and 
popular — and  it  is  to  be  construed  in  any  given  case,  with  refer- 


ence  to  the  subject  matter.  In  this  case  it  cannot  be  construed 
in  its  technical  sense,  because  we  all  know  and  admit,  that  this 
Convention  cannot  pass,  or  execute  a  technical  judgment  upon  the 
three  bishops.  It  is  used  here  in  its  popular  sense — as  synony- 
mous with  opinion.  We  pass  our  opinions  upon  a  President  of 
the  United  States  or  an  administration,  in  the  shape  of  resolutions, 
and  will  it  be  pretended,  that  because  we  cannot  impeach  and  pun- 
ish, we  cannot  pass  such  resolutions  ?  And  may  we  not  express 
our  opinion  upon  the  conduct  of  the  three  bishops,  in  proper  and 
respectful  language?  Gentlemen  say,  the  Conventions  of  other 
dioceses  may  retort  upon  our  Bishop.  So  they  may,  when  our 
Bishop  interferes  with  such  dioceses,  as  the  three  have  done  in  this. 

Has  it  come  to  this,  that  we  cannot  respectfully  and  in  proper 
language,  express  our  ojnnion  upon  the  conduct  of  these  bishops  ? 
This  is  a  free  country,  and  a  free  church,  where  every  man  may 
express  his  opinion  respectfully  upon  any  subject.  We  may  ex- 
press our  opinion  of  the  conduct  of  three  bishops  in  any  case,  and 
certainly  we  may  do  so,  when  they  unconstitutionally  invade  our 
rights. 

Gentlemen  say,  "will  you  try  these  bishops  without  evidence?" 
Sir,  we  do  not  try  them  at  all,  and  for  our  opinions  we  want  no 
evidence  other  than  we  have.  The  whole  case  arises  upon  an 
official  document  which  is  before  us.  Its  character  is  manifest — 
no  other  evidence  is  wanted,  or  could  be  used  if  we  had  it.  The 
letter  itself,  with  the  constitution  and  canons,  makes  the  whole 
case. 

Again,  sir,  I  prefer  the  original  resolution  without  amendment. 
The  amendment  changes  the  words  without  materially  changing 
the  sense — we  would  not  protest  against  the  conduct  of  these 
bishops,  if  we  did  not  consider  that  conduct  uncanonical  and  un- 
constitutional, or  worse.  The  resolution  says,  their  conduct  is 
"  unwarranted  by  any  canon,  law,  or  usage  of  the  church."  This 
is  a  mild  and  respectful  expression  of  opinion  upon  their  conduct. 
It  imputes  no  wrong  motive.  It  is  as  mild  and  respectful  as  the 
extraordinary  occasion  for  it  will  allow.  We  say  their  conduct 
was  not  warranted  by  any  canon,  law,  or  usage  of  the  Church — 
well  sir,  is  it?  I  call  on  the  gentlemen  to  produce  any  canon,  law, 
or  usage  of  the  Church,  that  will  sanction  such  a  course  as  the 
three  bishops  have  taken — or  such  a  cold  and  heartless  letter  as 
they  have  written. 

In  view  of  the  occasion,  the  official  conduct  and  character  of  the 
three  Rt.  Rev.  Prelates,  the  conduct  of  our  Bishop  under  the  ex- 
traordinary circumstances,  and  the  rights  and  dignities  of  this 
diocese  and  Convention,  I  think  this  resolution,  as  it  came  from 
the  committee,  eminently  appropriate. 

Our  Bishop  did  right,  in  refusing  to  follow  the  course  marked 
out  for  him,  and  protesting  against  this  unconstitutional  interfer- 
ence. It  is  a  proper  assertion  of  Episcopal  jurisdiction,  and  a 
just  vindication  of  the  rights  and  dignity  of  this  diocese  and  Con- 
vention ;  and  it  is  eminently  right  and  proper  for  us  now,  to  say 


40 

to  those  three  bishops — "your  present  interference  is  unwarranted 
by  any  canon,  law,  or  usage  of  the  Church." 

I  hope  the  resolution  will  pass  without  amendment. 

Rev.  Me.  Dunn. — What  I  have  to  say  will  be  a  small  speech 
about  a  large  one.  The  remarks  of  my  learned  friend  to  my  right 
might  induce  me  to  think  him  a  very  good  churchman.  I  do  not 
deny  that  he  is,  and  I  will  admit  his  argument,  if  rightly  applied. 
I  find  he  is  very  cautious  about  making  up  a  judgment;  and  he 
talks  about  a  charitable  view ;  but  that  may  do  very  well  for 
another  text.  But  I  cannot  admit  the  force  of  his  argument,  and 
adopt  it,  until  he  reconciles  the  argument  'with  the  expression  of 
an  opinion  and  judgment,  about  the  conduct  of  his  superior  in  this 
Church,  [Mr.  Ilalstead. — I  call  the  gentleman  to  order.)  and  that 
he  should  take  upon  himself  to  act  contrary  to  the  apparent  unani- 
mous voice  of  the  Convention  to  which  he  belongs,  and  when  he 
has  reconciled  his  conduct  with  his  argument,  I  will  admit  the 
force  of  it.  There  is  no  law  by  which  the  argument,  as  he  uses  it, 
can  be  sustained,  and  I  think  it  amounts  to  nothing. 

Mr.  Halstead.  I  beg  leave  to  answer  the  gentleman.  He  has 
thought  proper  to  make  a  direct  attack  upon  me.  The  gentleman 
says  my  argument  is  worth  nothing,  until  I  show  I  do  not  pre- 
judge the  Bishop.  I  beg  to  state  what  my  course  of  conduct  has 
been  towards  the  Bishop.  I  am  known  to  be  a  gentleman  residing 
at  Trenton,  and  a  member  of  the  bar.  I  am  known  perhaps  as 
well  throughout  this  State,  as  well  as  any  other  member  of  the 
bar.  I  am  known  to  be  a  churchman,  and  an  officer  of  the  Church. 
I  reside  in  the  central  part  of  the  State,  and  my  business  calls  me 
North  and  South.  In  1849,  if  others  had  moved  in  this  matter,  I 
myself  should,  not  have  introduced  this  resolution.  My  object 
was  to  give  the  Bishop  an  opportunity  of  clearing  his  character 
of  these  rumoured  charges.  I  had  no  intention  when  I  left  home, 
to  offer  this  resolution.  I  looked  around  to  see  if  there  was  any 
member  upon  whom  it  would  come  more  properly  than  upon  my- 
self. I  could  not  go  to  the  younger,  and  I  could  not  ask  the  two 
elder  gentlemen.  I  looked  around  on  the  Lay  members,  and  I 
found  none  who  were  in  the  habit  of  public  speaking ;  and  in 
short,  I  think  the  conduct  of  the  Bishop  required  an  explanation 
to  put  these  charges  down.  When  the  matter  of  the  Bishop's 
account  came  up,  and  an  exposure  was  made  of  the  Episcopal  fund  ; 
I  knew  nothing  about  it  at  that  time.  The  Bishop  got  up  and 
stated  that  he  intended  to  give  security,  and  speedily,  I  under- 
stood him.  I  then  got  up  and  said  I  was  glad,  and  I  hoped  he 
would  give  the  security.  There  was  nothing  wrong  in  that.  I 
felt  no  hostility  to  the  Bishop,  nor  he  to  me ;  and  he  called  me  to 
him  and  said,  you  have  not  spoken  to  me,  or  something  to  that 
effect. 

Bishop  Doane. — I  am  very  unwilling  to  interrupt  you,  sir,  but 
I  cannot  permit  that  statement  to  pass  uncontradicted. 


41 

Mr.  Halstead. — What  do  you  mean  ? 

Bishop  Doane. — The  statement  that  I  solicited  your  hand.  I 
did  no  such  thing.     You  came  to  me  and  offered  yours. 

Mr.  Halstead. — Oh,  very  -well:  I  do  not  pretend  to  he 
infallible. 

Mr.  Halstead. — I  say  I  had  no  hostility  towards  the  Bishop, 
and  I  felt  that  I  had  doue  my  duty.  I  thought  the  Bishop  would 
give  the  security.  He  did  not  do  it;  and  I  said  I  would  attend 
another  Convention,  to  see  that  the  security  was  given.  At  that 
Convention  the  Bishop  got  up  and  said,  that  the  Counsellor  from 
Trenton  had  told  that  he  meant  to  come  to  that  Convention  for 
the  purpose  of  having  that  fund  secured.  Somehow  or  other  the 
Bishop  seems  to  know  all  that  is  going  on.  I  got  up  and  said,  that 
I  mean  to,  before  I  leave  here.  What  occurred  afterward  it  is  not 
necessary  to  state,  for  it  has  been  made  public.  I  had  done  my 
duty,  as  I  supposed.  I  came  to  the  Convention  the  ensuing  year, 
and  a  respectable  citizen  of  this  place  presented  to  me  a  memorial, 
drawn  up  in  his  own  handwriting,  and  sworn  to,  containing 
charges  against  Bishop  Doane  ;  and  I  thought  it  was  a  duty  I 
owed  to  every  citizen,  to  present  that  memorial ;  and  I  would  have 
presented  it  at  the  last  Convention,  because  the  Convention 
adjourned  while  I  was  at  home,  but  I  could  not ;  and  so  I  failed  in 
two  attempts.  I  thought  they  were  charges  which  ought — for  the 
good  of  the  Church — to  be  investigated,  and  I  felt  it  my  duty  to 
send  these  charges  to  the  three  Bishops ;  and  there  were  other 
gentlemen  who  agreed  with  me  in  my  opinion.  I  supposed  that 
the  names  of  four  members  of  any  church  would  have  been  suffi- 
cient to  warrant  the  reception  of  our  memorial  by  the  three 
Bishops.  They  did  so.  That  was  all  we  had  to  do.  It  will  give 
me  pleasure  if  Bishop  Doane  can  show  that  these  are  ill-founded, 
for  I  have  no  interest  in  it  if  they  prove  true.  I  have  the  common 
interest  with  every  churchman,  and  I  want  to  see  my  Church 
relieved  from  any  imputation ;  and  I  want  to  see  her  without  blemish 
or  wrinkle,  holy  and  pure.  If  there  is  any  thing  wrong  in  that,  I 
am  wrong.  No  such  charge  as  that  should  remain  without  being 
investigated ;  and  I  do  say,  that  until  they  are  investigated,  you 
may  pass  resolution  after  resolution,  and  the  public  will  never  be 
satisfied. 

Mr.  J.  J.  Chetwood. — The  gentleman  from  St.  Michael's  cer- 
tainly cannot  now  complain,  that  he  has  not  had  a  full  hearing, 
while  making  a  clean  breast  of  it.  He  congratulated  him  on  the 
opportunity  he  had  embraced  of  lauding  himself  as  in  the  first 
rank  of  the  bar,  and  of  his  high  standing  as  a  member  of  the 
Church.  His  fame  had  been  trumpeted  in  a  certain  newspaper ; 
and  his  pamphlet  had  spread  far  and  wide,  his  own  estimate  of  his 
standing  in  Church  and  State.  (Laughter.)  He  too,  though 
somewhat  his  junior,  had  spent  many  years  in  the  profession, 


42 

which,  however,  gave  him  no  special  claims  for  consideration.  He 
had  no  desire  to  make  any  personal  attack  upon  the  gentleman, 
and  would  not  even  assail  the  dogged  stubbornness  with  which  he 
had  pursued  his  object,  notwithstanding  the  professions  he  has 
now  made.  (Some  person  called  to  order,  and  amid  the  con- 
fusion, Mr.  C.  said,  "Can't  I  be  permitted  to  follow  the  gentle- 
man? I  will  follow  him,  and  set  him  right  as  to  a  few  of  his 
facts.")  I  recollect  perfectly,  at  the  adjournment  of  the  Conven- 
tion of  1849,  that  the  gentleman  went  up  to  the  Bishop,  and  said, 
I  am  delighted  (or  pleased,  I  can't  say  which)  at  the  result ;  I 
would  not  have  offered  the  resolution,  but  for  the  outside  pressure. 
(Mr.  H.  It  is  not  true.)  Mr.  C. — I  reassert  it,  I  was  near  by, 
and  cannot  be  mistaken,  (and  turning  to  Mr.  H.)  said,  I  am  per- 
fectly willing  to  put  my  word  against  yours,  before  this  or  any 
other  assemblage  of  the  people  of  New  Jersey.  (Laughter  and 
applause,  -which  were  checked  by  the  Bishop.)  And  let  me  im- 
press on  th»  gentleman,  that  the  charge  of  falsehood  in  such  a 
place,  is  no  greater  evidence  of  courage,  than  of  Christian 
courtesy.  In  the  charge,  too,  relating  to  the  Episcopal  fund, 
at  the  Convention  at  Newark,  in  1850,  Judge  Duer,  Mr.  Ryall, 
and  the  other  member  of  the  Committee,  whose  name  I  forget,  re- 
ported that  it  was  satisfactorily  secured.  Mr.  H.  insisted  that 
the  security  should  be  stated  publicly,  and  when  told  it  was 
on  the  clerk's  table,  open  for  inspection,  and  an  appeal  was 
made  to  his  instincts  as  a  gentleman,  and  the  Bishop  himself 
having  called  for  the  reading  of  the  papers,  he  finally  seemed  to 
acquiesce  in  the  propriety  and  delicacy  of  not  further  urging  his 
purposes  of  publicity.  The  gentleman  is  also  mistaken  as  to  the 
adjournment  of  the  last  Annual  Convention.  He  was  not  present, 
and  I  know  not  whence  he  obtained  his  information.  At  the  close 
of  ordinary  business,  Judge  Duer  and  Mr.  Rutherford  requested 
me  to  offer  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  for  triennial  meet- 
ings of  Convention.  The  reasons  stated  need  not  be  repeated.  I 
at  first  declined,  but  finally  consented  at  their  solicitations. 

This  being  disposed  of,  a  motion  was  made  for  adjournment; 
when  a  clergyman  objected  that  there  was  other  business.  On 
being  asked  what  it  was,  that  it  could  then  be  considered,  he 
declined  to  state,  or  make  any  proposition.  Some  discussion  oc- 
curred, after  which,  either  Mr.  Rutherford,  or  some  person  in  the 
same  pew,  moved  an  adjournment,  to  which  I  objected ;  and  upon 
the  question  being  taken,  my  vote  was  in  the  negative,  and,  I  be- 
lieve, the  only  negative  vote  given.  Upon  this  matter  I  cannot  be 
mistaken ;  and  there  are  several  gentlemen  now  present,  who  re- 
collect that  their  attention  was  called  to  the  fact,  by  me,  the  same 
evening,  with  the  remark,  that  no  doubt  some  persons  would  speak 
of  the  meeting  being  concluded  the  first  day  as  being  unusual. 
In  the  face  of  all  these  facts,  the  gentleman,  not  only  here,  in  his 
speech,  but  elsewhere,  in  his  pamphlet  and  the  newspaper,  has 
charged  upon   the  Bishop's   friends,  the   hurried   adjournment. 


43 

Now,  Sir,  the  only  opposition  to  the  adjournment,  was  from  one 
who  has  always  been,  and  still  is  his  friend. 

But  the  gentleman  has  said  the  letter  of  the  three  B'shops  was 
a  friendly  and  private,  and  not  an  official  communication.  Friendly, 
indeed  !  Kind  and  courteous  too,  he  has  called  it — that  cold  vapor 
of  the  grave  which  can  hardly  be  spoken  of  in  any  proper  terms 
in  this  place  and  presence — a  private  letter — why,  sir,  I  have  ex- 
amined the  envelope,  addressed  in  the  handwriting  of  the  gentle- 
man— I  have  read  the  papers  enclosed,  and  now  hold  in  my  hand 
the  letter  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine  to  Bishop  Meade,  the  very  first 
paragraph  of  which  refers  to  the  object,  which  he  states  to  be  the 
presentment  of  Bishop  Doane  for  trial.  (A  call  was  made  for  the 
letter,  which  was  read  by  Mr.  C,  and  created  a  marked  sensation.) 
The  Convention  can  now  judge  whether  the  Bishops'  letter  could 
be  viewed  in  any  other  light  than  official.  Why,  sir,  Bishop 
Mcllvaine  authorizes  Bishop  Meade,  as  the  senior  of  the  three,  to 
have  his  name  put  to  the  document,  and  Bishop  Meade,  in  his  most 
friendly  and  flattering  communication  to  the  gentleman,  requests 
him  to  sign  for  Bishop  Mcllvaine ;  and  we  leave  this  private, 
friendly,  and  courteous  letter,  finished  for  its  purpose,  by  the  gen- 
tleman of  St.  Michael's  affixing  the  name  of  the  Bishop  of  Ohio. 

The  gentleman  triumphantly  reiterates  the  question,  "Where is 
the  evidence  to  support  the  resolution  ?"  I  point  to  that  letter,  and 
ask  what  further  evidence  could  be  desired.  Not  content  with  its 
dictatorial  language  to  the  Bishop,  they  also  impeach  the  action 
of  the  Convention.  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  the  Convention 
shall  be  judged  by  its  acts.  The  members  of  this  body  will  com- 
pare favorably  with  those  of  any  other  Convention  in  the  Union, 
and  I  mistake  my  fellow-citizens,  if  they  do  not  know  their  rights, 
and  knowing,  dare  maintain  them.  Would  that  the  three  were 
present,  to  hear  the  statements  and  arguments  of  their  advocate. 
But  I  rejoice  that  there  are  those  who  will  report  verbatim,  our 
proceedings,  and  when  the  course  of  the  gentleman  is  seen,  I  doubt 
whether  his  conclusions  will  stand  the  test  of  sound  judgment  any 
better  than  his  facts  that  of  examination. 

Mr.  President,  our  course,  under  the  Divine  blessing,  is  onward, 
still  onward,  notwithstanding  the  obstacles  and  opposition  which 
two  or  three  of  our  own  number  are  endeavoring  to  throw  in  our 
way.  The  gentleman  has  professed  his  desire  to  see  "the  Church 
without  spot  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing."  I  trust  the  time  is 
soon  coming  when  he,  and  the  fe>v  who  consort  with  him,  will  look 
back  with  regret  on  the  hindrances  they  have  vainly  endeavored 
to  interpose  ;  when  co-operating  with  their  brethren  to  advance 
all  her  institutions  and  interests,  they  shall  behold  our  Church 
among  the  high  places  of  Zion. 

Judge  Ogden. — I  think,  Mr.  President,  that  the  debate  has 
taken  a  wide  departure  from  the  question  before  the  Convention ; 
but  I  do  not  complain,  sir,  of  the  digression  made  by  the  delegate 
from  St.  Michael's  Church,  Trenton. 


44 

Advocates  of  the  resolution  have  indulged  in  personal  remarks, 
and  the  gentleman  was  fairly  entitled  to  make  a  defence.  He 
has  claimed  and  exercised  his  right  without  stint ;  not  extending 
his  observations  beyond  what  the  occasion  justified. 

I  should  have  been  disappointed,  if  he  had  not  made  an  expla- 
nation. But,  sir,  I  think  that  the  discussion  will  now  be  confined 
to  the  proposed  amendment.  The  language  employed  in  the 
resolution  is  very  suitable,  and  in  my  opinion  is  more  delicate 
towards  the  Rt.  Rev.  Bishops,  than  that  of  the  substitute.  It  is 
neither  more  nor  less,  than  a  firm  declaration  of  our  judgment, 
that  their  proceedings  are  not  supported  by  the  law  of  the  Church 
■ — whereas  the  amendment,  if  adopted,  will  make  us  "  protest 
against  their  right"  to  prescribe  to  us  a  course  of  action.  I  am 
not  prepared  to  adopt  the  language  of  the  amendment.  It  might 
be  exceptionable  to  the  three  Bishops.  I  hope,  sir,  that  it  will 
not  prevail. 

Rev.  Saml.  L.  Southard. — This  debate,  sir,  has  taken  such  a 
latitude,  that  I  rise  in  the  hope,  that,  by  a  few  brief  sentences,  I 
may  recall  the  attention  of  the  members  of  Convention  to  the 
point — the  real  point  which  is  involved  in  this  discussion — to  the 
real  merits  of  this  question.  Now,  I  submit,  to  the  brethren 
around  me,  who  have  moved  and  advocated  this  proposed  amend- 
ment, and  who  find  themselves  unable  to  vote  for  the  entire  reso- 
lution, the  question,  what  is  the  idea  which  they  are  willing  to 
embody  in  that  portion  of  the  resolution  they  approve  ?  It  is,  that, 
a  wrong  has  been  done  to  the  Bishop,  and  the  Diocese  of  New 
Jersey.  What  is  the  nature  of  that  wrong  ?  Is  it  a  violation  of 
good  taste  ?  Is  it  the  infliction  of  personal  injury?  Or,  is  it  a  vio- 
lation of  law — of  ecclesiastical  law  ?  Is  it  not  against  their  action 
as  unlawful,  that  they  are  willing  to  protest?  And,  if  it  be  so, 
why  not  say  it  is  unlawful  ?  Why  avoid  the  term  ?  Is  not  the  very 
pith,  and  life,  the  substance,  and  the  whole,  of  the  ground  of  their 
objection,  and  of  their  willingness  to  make  this  protest,  that  the 
action  of  these  Bishops  is  unlaivful  ?  I  submit  to  them,  that  by 
the  change  of  phraseology,  they  do  not  escape  the  declaration ! 
And  I  ask  them  now,  to  consider  the  matter  in  this  light,  and  to 
withdraw  their  motion,  in  order  that  we  may  go  on,  to  the  con- 
sideration and  adoption  of  the  preamble  and  the  resolutions  which 
are  now  before  us.  And,  if  they  are  not  willing  to  withdraw  it, 
then,  I  earnestly  implore  the  members  of  Convention,  to  have  the 
question  taken  at  once,  on  the  proposed  amendment. 

Rev.  Mr.  Starr. — I  wish  to  call  upon  the  Secretary,  to  read 
the  concluding  clause  of  that  article  of  the  Constitution  providing 
for  Special  Conventions. 

(The  clause  is  read.)  My  objection  to  the  resolution  is  two- 
fold, viz.  the  first  part  is  unconstitutional  according  to  the  clause  of 
the  Constitution  which  we  have  just  heard  read.  My  objection  to 
the  latter  part  is  that  it  refers  to  parties  who  have  nothing  to  do 


45 

with  us.     Under  these  circumstances  I  cannot  vote  for  the  resolu- 
tion. 

The  Rev  Mr.  Sherman,  of  Belleville,  asks  leave  of  absence,  which 
is  granted. 

Mr.  A.  Gifford. — I  should  beg  leave  to  decline  acting  upon 
this  resolution,  inasmuch  as  it  is  of  a  very  important  character, 
and  one  which  aifects  the  interest  of  the  Church.  It  is  one  which 
requires  solemn  deliberation,  and  more  than  I  could  give  in  the 
short  space  of  time  alloted  to  consider  it.  I  feel  it  is  a  matter  of 
so  much  consequence,  that,  under  the  present  circumstances,  I  am 
not  in  favor  of  acting  upon  it.  I  for  my  own  part  would  not  take 
the  responsibility  of  it.  We  stand  here,  sir,  before  the  assize  of  the 
people.  In  a  court  of  justice  we  agree  to  abide  by  the  decision  of 
the  court.  It  is  not  so  in  deliberative  bodies.  The  people  will 
consider  the  question,  and  therefore  how  deeply  important  it  is  to 
consider  upon  what  we  are  doing.  Is  there  no  other  time  but  the 
present  ?  Must  we  close  this  matter  at  the  present  moment  ?  We 
have  heard  the  learned,  able,  and  eloquent  address  of  the  Bishop 
upon  the  subject.  Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  such  resolutions  as 
these,  if  they  were  passed  in  the  Legislature,  would  pass  at  once  ? 
No,  there  the  business  is  presented  one  day,  and  the  people  have 
time  to  consider  of  it ;  and  often  the  governor  puts  his  veto  upon 
it,  notwithstanding  that  deliberation.  And  why  should  we,  in  a 
matter  of  this  kind,  which  is  going  to  affect  the  Church  so  deeply, 
pass  a  precipitate  judgment  upon  it  ?  Now  here  we  are  come 
together  as  delegates  from  our  respective  parishes.  Have  we 
been  appointed  for  this  particular  purpose  ?  Last  Easter  such  an 
event  as  the  trial  of  a  bishop  never  entered  into  the  minds  of  our 
people.  Had  it  been  so  they  would  have  sent  men  more  capable 
of  acting  upon  so  momentous  a  matter  than  myself.  I  should 
wish  that  we  might  have  an  opportunity  of  placing  it  before  the 
people,  and  then  we  have  accomplished  the  great  and  important 
object  of  being  called  together  here.  We  have  seen  and  dis- 
cussed the  resolutions,  we  have  interchanged  our  opinions 
with  one  another,  and  we  can  go  home  and  tell  what  has  been 
done,  and  the  people  can  reflect  upon  it.  There  is  a  convention 
to  take  place  in  the  month  of  May  ;  I  move  that  to  that  period  we 
adjourn  the  whole  matter. 
Hon.  J.  W.  Miller,  U.  S.  Senate,  said  : — 

If  I  understand  the  motion  of  my  friend  from  Newark,  Mr. 
Gifford,  correctly,  it  is  to  substitute  his  resolutions  for  those  re- 
ported by  the  committee,  and  that  his  object  is  to  postpone  the 
further  consideration  of  the  whole  subject  until  the  next  annual 
Convention. 

In  making  this  motion  of  postponement  the  gentleman  must,  I 
think,  have  overlooked  the  facts  and  circumstances  which  led  to 
the  call  of  this  special  Convention.  Had  he  adverted  to  them,  his 
own  good  judgment  would  have  told  him  that  the  case  required 


46 

prompt  and  immediate  action,  and  that  delay  on  our  part  would  be 
an  abandonment  of  our  diocesan  rights.  The  call  of  this  special 
convention  was  not  induced  by  any  act  of  ours  ;  nothing  within  the 
diocese  required  this  meeting.  It  has  been  forced  upon  us  from 
without,  by  foreign  dictation;  we  have  met  to  resist  an  aggression, 
and  if  we  are  compelled  to  act  promptly,  or  as  the  gentleman  says, 
hastily,  the  fault  is  not  ours,  but  theirs  who  forced  the  emergency 
upon  us.  What  are  the  facts  and  circumstances  which  induced 
our  Bishop  to  call  this  convention  ? 

On  the  -!2d  of  September,  1851 — I  take  the  date  of  their  joint 
letter  —  three  Right  Reverend  Bishops  met  somewhere,  either  in 
Ohio,  Virginia,  or  Maine — they  do  not  tell  where — and  jointly  re- 
ceived, considered,  and  determined  upon  certain  grave  charges, 
made  against  our  Bishop,  and  there  jointly,  and  in  their  official 
Characters,  make  known  their  determination  to  the  accused  bishop, 
in  the  form  of  a  joint  letter.  In  that  letter  they  say,  "  we  have 
resolved  to  advise  and  urge  you  to  have  without  delay  a  special  con- 
vention for  the  purpose  of  a  full  investigation  of  all  that  has  been 
or  may  be  laid  to  your  charge,  whether  in  the  document  we  trans- 
mit to  you,  or  otherwise." 

Here,  in  this  dictation  by  the  three  bishops  to  our  bishop,  to  call, 
"without  delay,"  a  special  convention,  is  found  the  first  reason 
why  this  Convention,  should,  without  delay,  declare  that  we 
acknowledge  no  authority  out  of  our  diocese,  to  direct  when,  or 
for  what  purpose,  the  Convention  of  New  Jersey  shall  meet. 
But,  Sir,  the  three  bishops,  not  content  with  directing  the  call  of 
a  "  special  convention,  without  delay,"  they,  also,  proceed  to  direct 
and  control  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention,  when  assembled. 
They  tell  us,  or,  rather,  they  direct  you,  the  bishop,  to  dictate 
to  us,  the  course  of  our  proceeding.  "  To  appoint  an  impartial 
and  intelligent  committee,  in  whom  great  confidence  will  be 
reposed,  with  instructions  to  make  the  fullest  investigation  of  the 
evil  reports,  which  are,  and  have  been  assailing  your  character 
and  conduct ;  and  that  no  mere  report  of  a  committee,  or  vote  of 
a  convention,  declaring  a  belief  of  your  innocency,  and  that  an 
ini[uiry  is  unnecessary,  will  suffice  for  your  own  reputation,  or 
give  satisfaction  to  the  public." 

Upon  the  receipt  of  this  letter,  and  after  giving  to  its  authors 
the  answer  it  deserves,  our  Bishop  so  far  complies  with  the  de- 
mand of  the  three,  as  to  call  without  delay  a  special  Convention  of 
the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  upon  whom,  that  letter,  its  advice,  its 
orders,  and  commands  were  intended  to  operate;  and  he  now  sub- 
mits to  us  the  whole  of  these  strange  proceedings,  with  his  official 
action  thereon,  and  asks  us  to  take  such  action  therein  as  in  our 
judgment  may  seem  right  and  proper. 

This  Convention,  acting  within  its  own  jurisdiction,  and  upon 
a  subject  which  deeply  concerns  its  rights,  its  honor,  and  its 
purity  of  character,  has  proceeded  to  consider  the  subject,  ap- 
pointed a  committee,  consisting  of  members  of  each  order,  to  whom 


47 

the  whole  subject  was  referred.  As  I  am  an  humble  member  of 
that  committee,  I 'will  not  stop  to  inquire  whether  this  Convention, 
in  making  the  selection,  were  governed  by  the  special  directions  of 
three  Bishops  to  appoint  "an  impartial  and  intelligent  commit- 
tee," or  not;  such  as  the  committee  is,  partial  or  impartial,  intel- 
ligent or  stupid,  it  is  the  committee  of  this  Convention,  freely  and 
unanimously  chosen  by  the  legal  representatives  of  the  churches 
of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey.  This  committee  has  with  perfect 
unanimity  reported  the  resolutions  now  under  consideration. 

These  resolutions,  if  passed,  will  be  the  answer  of  this  Conven- 
tion to  the  letter  of  these  Bishops.  The  resolutions  merely 
assert  what  we  believe  to  be  our  diocesan  rights  and  privileges, 
and  in  the  mildest  language  which  the  nature  of  the  case  admits 
of,  declare,  that  the  action  the  three  Right  Reverend  Bishops  in 
the  premises,  is  in  our  judgment,  unwarranted  by  any  canon,  law, 
or  usage  of  the  Church ;  and,  in  answer  to  the  assumption  of 
guilt  against  our  Bishop,  and  the  insinuation  that  this  Convention, 
has  or  may  neglect  its  duty,  contained  in  the  letter  of  the  three 
Bishops,  we  repel  alike  the  assumption  and  the  insinuation,  by 
declaring  our  entire  confidence  in  the  uprightness  of  character  and 
purity  of  intention  of  our  Bishop,  and  that  we  have  always  been, 
and  are  still  willing  and  ready  to  meet  and  investigate  any  charges 
duly  made  and  presented  against  him ;  and  also  expressing  our 
opinion,  in  view  of  all  that  has  passed,  and  also  in  answer  to  the 
opinion  of  these  Bishops  to  the  contrary — That  the  best  interests 
of  the  Diocese  and  of  the  Church  at  large  require  no  such  pro- 
ceeding. 

Now,  sir,  in  view  of  all  these  facts,  and  proceedings,  it  is  pro- 
posed that  this  Convention  adjourn  without  taking  any  further 
action,  or  expressing  any  opinion  on  the  subject.  To  do  so,  would 
in  my  opinion,  be  a  tame  submission  to  a  known  aggression  upon 
our  diocesan  rights. 

It  would  be  a  yielding  up  of  the  whole  case  ;  I  mean,  the  case 
as  made  out  and  forced  upon  us  by  the  three  bishops  and  their 
coadjutors.  They  have  invaded  our  diocese.  They  have  sent 
here  charges  of  perjury  and  fraud  against  our  bishop  ;  they  have 
backed  those  charges  with  an  opinion  of  prima,  facie  guilt ;  they 
have  charged  us  with  neglect  of  duty ;  they  direct  us  to  proceed 
and  try  the  charges,  and  prescribe  the  manner  and  mode  of  our 
proceedings.  They  express  a  suspicion  of  our  integrity  and  of  our 
intelligence  ;  and  then  enforce  all  these  their  most  friendly  direc- 
tions, demands,  and  commands,  by  a  covert  threat  to  our  bishop, 
that  unless  such  a  course  as  they,  the  three  Rt.  Rev.  Bishops,  have 
"pointed  out,"  in  their  letter,  be  "pursued,"  they  will  take  the 
matter  in  hand.  Now,  I  ask,  who  in  this  Convention  desires  time 
to  consider  what  answer  he  shall  give  to  demands  so  illegal  and  so 
offensive  ?     Delay,  in  a  case  like  this,  is  acquiescence  in  the  wrono-. 

If  we  believe  that  the  three  bishops  have  unlawfully  interfered 
with  our  diocesan  rights,  it  is  the  duty  of  this  Convention,  upon 


48 

whom  the  question  has  been  forced  by  the  action  of  the  three 
bishops,  to  meet  and  resist  the  interference  at  once.  To  postpone 
the  question  to  the  next  Annual  Convention  for  the  reason 
assigned  by  some  gentlemen — that  new  delegates  may  be  elected 
by  our  constituents,  who  may  be  better  prepared  to  determine  this 
question — would  be  to  stultify  ourselves.  Such  a  course  would 
make  us  obnoxious  to  all  of  the  charges  made  by  the  three  bishops, 
that  we  had  neglected  and  delayed  to  perform  our  duty  to  the 
Church,  and  that  some  of  us  were  even  destitute  of  the  ordinary 
qualifications  of  fairness  and  intelligence,  and  not  fit  to  be  placed 
upon  a  committee  of  inquiry.  I  trust  that  the  Convention  has  too 
much  respect  for  the  character  of  churchmen  in  New  Jersey,  to 
make  any  such  admission. 

But  it  is  said  that  the  letter  of  the  three  bishops  was  a  private 
letter,  a  friendly  epistle  intended  merely  for  your  eye,  and  for 
your  consideration ;  and  that  you  did  wrong  in  publishing  the 
letter  to  your  diocese,  and  in  calling  this  Convention  to  consider 
its  contents.  No  man  who  reads  that  letter,  with  care,  together 
with  the  facts  stated  in  your  address  of  to-day,  can  doubt  as  to  its 
true  character.  Its  form  and  substance  show  that  it  is  an  official 
communication,  intended  to  operate  on  official  and  public  matters, 
relating,  not  merely  to  your  character,  rights,  and  duties  as  the 
Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  but,  also,  relating  to  the  duties,  to  the 
character,  the  proceedings,  and  the  official  conduct,  or  judgment, 
of  this,  the  Diocesan  Convention  of  New  Jersey.  We,  Sir,  the 
clergy  and  laity  of  New  Jersey,  are  made  parties  in  that  letter. 
We  are  as  much,  nay,  more  concerned  in  its  contents,  than  you 
are.  You  are  the  instrument,  we  are  the  subjects.  They  advise 
you  to  dictate  to  us  ;  they  direct  you  to  call,  without  delay,  a  spe- 
cial Convention,  and  when  assembled,  to  point  out,  as  they  have 
directed  you,  the  mode  and  manner  of  our  proceedings.  It  is  three 
bishops  dictating  to  a  fourth,  to  dictate  to  his  Diocesan  Conven- 
tion, how  it  shall  act  upon  a  matter  submitted  to  its  consideration 
and  judgment. 

Yet,  this  is  called  a  private  letter,  one  in  which  this  Convention 
has  no  concern.  Sir,  if  you  could  have  so  far  forgotten  what  was 
due  to  your  own  reputation  as  a  man,  and  to  your  character  as  a 
Christian  Bishop,  as  to  receive  and  treat  this  letter,  with  all  its 
offensive  contents  and  accompaniments,  as  a  private  communica- 
tion, as  mere  friendly  advice  from  your  Right  Rev.  Brothers, 
and  had  suppressed  their  publication  to  your  Diocese,  you  would, 
in  my  opinion,  have  been  guilty  of  a  gross  neglect  of  duty  towards 
that  portion  of  the  Church,  over  which  God  in  His  providence,  has 
placed  you  to  be  its  head,  its  protector  and  defender.  You  might 
have  yielded  your  own  independence,  and  in  silence  submitted  to 
the  dictation.  I  beg  pardon  for  making  so  monstrous  a  supposition, 
yet  it  you  had  the  power  to  do  — but  you  could  not,  you  dared 
not,  surrender  the  civil  and  religious  rights  of  this  diocese.  Neither 
could  you  suppress,  as  a  private  matter,  charges,  sanctioned  by 


49 

the  name  of  these  Bishops,  deeply  affecting  not  only  your  charac- 
ter as  Bishop,  but  also  implicating  the  fairness,  the  honesty,  and 
the  independence  of  this  and  the  former  Conventions  of  the  diocese. 

This  letter  is  also  an  official  communication.  It  was  evidently 
intended  as  such  by  its  authors ;  the  form  and  manner  of  the 
letter  declares  its  character.  "  We  have  received  certain  charges. 
We  have  considered  them.  We  have  resolved  upon  a  certain 
course.  We  have  been  selected  to  perform  a  painful  duty,  in 
order  to  determine  whether  it  may  not  be  proper  to  institute  a 
trial,  according  to  the  canon  provided  for  that  purpose."  In  other 
words,  the  letter  shows — (provided  it  correctly  reports  their  pro- 
ceedings,"— that  the  three  Bishops  met  somewhere — they  do  not 
tell  us  where,  and  jointly  received  the  nineteen  charges,  with 
their  specifications: — No  that  they  proceeded  to  consider  these 
charges  ;  that  they  determined  upon  the  character  of  them  ;  that 
they  resolved  what  to  do  with  them ;  and  then,  in  their  official 
characters,  acting  together  as  a  board  of  three  Bishops,  engaged 
in  the  painful  duty  prescribed  by  a  canon  of  the  Church,  write  a 
joint  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  directed  to  him  by  his 
official  name  and  character,  advising  him  to  take  official  action 
on  the  subject  matter  of  their  communication.  If  this  be  not  an 
official  communication,  upon  a  public  matter,  I  cannot  conceive 
what  further  formalities  are  necessary  to  give  to  it  that  cha- 
racter.    It  is  certainly  a  very  strange  kind  of  private  letter. 

I  now  desire  to  say  a  word  upon  the  construction  of  the  canon 
of  18J4,  under  which  the  three  Bishops  say  they  viewed  the 
charges  from  the  four  lay  members  in  New  Jersey.  That  canon 
declares  that  "  the  trial  of  a  Bishop  shall  be  on  a  presentment  in 
writing,  specifying  the  offence  of  which  he  is  alleged  to  be  guilty, 
with  reasonable  certainty  as  to  time,  place,  and  circumstances." 
The  presentment  may  be  made  by  the  Convention  of  the  diocese, 
to  which  the  accused  Bishop  belongs  ;  and  it  may  also  be  made  by 
any  three  Bishops  of  the  Church. 

It  is  admitted  by  the  three  Bishops — and  such  is  the  fair  con- 
struction of  the  canon — that  the  diocese  has  the  prior  right  of 
presentment,  and  that  it  is  only  when  the  diocese  neglects  to 
perform  the  duty  that  the  Bishops  should  interfere.  Now,  with- 
out ever  claiming  this  priority  of  right  for  our  diocese,  I  desire 
to  put  the  present  case  upon  a  point  which  cannot  be  disputed, 
to  wit,  that  the  diocese  of  New  Jersey  has,  by  the  canon,  an 
equal  riyht  with  the  three  Bishops  to  determine  for  itself,  where 
and  under  ivhat  circumstances  it  will  present  its  Bishop  for  trial, 
and  that  the  diocese  is  the  sole  judge  of  its  duty  in  the  matter  of 
presentment.  The  only  control  over  its  proceedings  is,  that  the 
canon  requires  two-thirds  of  both  orders  necessary  to  make  a 
presentment.  The  mode  and  manner  in  which  to  consider  and 
dispose  of  any  complaint  made  against  their  Bishop,  is  for  the 
Convention  to  determine.  They  may  do  it  by  a  mere  report  of  a 
committee,  or  a  vote  of  the  Convention,  declaring  that  they  believe  their 

4 


50 

Bishop  innocent,  and  that  inquiry  is  unnecessary.  The  three 
Bishops  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  with  the  diocese  ;  they  also 
can,  as  the  three  Bishops  in  this  case  have  done,  determine  for 
themselves,  when  charges  are  worthy  to  be  considered  and  pre- 
sented. But  where,  I  ask,  do  they  find  the  law,  or  the  canon  that 
gives  to  them  a  supervisory  jurisdiction  over  the  proceedings  of 
a  diocese,  or  that  authorizes  them  to  inquire  into  the  mode  and 
manner  in  which  the  diocese  performs  its  duty.  The  three 
Bishops  have  the  undoubted  right  to  present,  but  I  know  of  no 
canon,  law,  or  usage  in  the  Church  which  authorizes  them  to 
constitute  themselves  into  a  court  of  inquest  to  receive  charges 
and  specifications  in  the  nature  of  a  presentment.  They  may 
present  a  Bishop  for  trial,  specifying  the  oifences  of  which  he  is 
alleged  to  be  guilty,  but  they  have  no  right  to  receive  present- 
ments against  Bishops  for  crimes,  and  against  dioceses  for  neglect 
of  duty,  and  then  transmit  them  for  trial  and  judgment  to  the 
accused,  accompanied  with  their  official  opinion  as  to  the  serious 
nature  of  the  charges,  with  directions  as  to  the  manner  in  which 
they  are  to  be  disposed  of. 

What  a  strange  spectacle  this  strange  proceeding  exhibits  to 
the  world.  Four  laymen  residing  in  this  diocese,  one  of  them  a 
member  of  this  Convention,  turning  their  back  upon  this  body, 
leaving  behind  them  all  the  courts,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  of  the 
State  in  which  the  crimes  are  charged  to  have  been  committed, 
and  passing  over  the  mountains  to  Ohio,  thence  down  into  Vir- 
ginia and  away  up  to  Maine,  for  the  purpose  of  charging 
our  Bishop  with  perjury,  fraud,  lying,  and  cheating.  Sir, 
a  decent  respect  for  common  humanity,  a  proper  regard 
for  ordinary  character,  should  have  caused  those  fugitive 
charges  to  be  looked  upon  with  suspicion.  But  when  it  is 
remembered  that  these  charges  made  against  one  of  the  highest 
functionaries  in  the  Church,  the  Bishop  of  one  of  the  oldest 
Dioceses  in  America,  and  against  a  man  who  has  devoted 
the  best  days  of  his  life  to  the  cause  of  religion  and  educa- 
tion, and  including  also  within  the  presentment  statements 
which  imputed  ignorance,  partialty,  and  gross  neglect  of  duty, 
to  the  whole  Diocese  of  New  Jersey;  the  conduct  of  the  three 
Bishops,  in  receiving  and  officially  acting  upon  a  presentment 
so  suspicious  and  so  monstrous,  cannot  be  justified  by  any  known 
rules  or  laws  which  govern  the  social  intercourse  of  individuals  or 
churches.  The  churchmen  of  New  Jersey  may  not  be  as  intelli- 
gent as  some  of  their  brethren  in  other  States,  but  they  must  be 
both  vicious  and  stupid,  if  they  cannot  find  out  for  themselves 
when  their  own  Bishop  has  been  guilty  of  perjury,  cheating,  and 
lying,  within  their  own  Diocese,  and  about  matters  concerning  the 
affairs  of  the  Diocese. 

If  the  three  Bishops  think  proper  to  assume  that  we  are  igno- 
rant of  these  alleged  crimes,  or  that  we  have  neglected  to  pro- 
secute them,  they  may  upon  their  own  high   responsibility  act 


51 

upon  their  superior  knowledge  and  zeal,  and  present  our  Bishop 
for  trial,  but  the}'  have  no  authority  to  arraign  the  Diocese  of 
New  Jersey,  for  neglect  of  its  duty. 

But,  it  is  said  that  we  are  arraigning  the  three  Bishops  for 
trial  before  this  Convention.  No  one  can,  with  any  show  of 
justice,  so  construe  the  resolutions  reported  by  the  Committee. 
They  are  merely  defensive.  They  only  resist  what  we  consider 
an  aggression  upon  our  Diocesan  rights.  All  that  we  say  about 
the  conduct  of  the  three  Bishops,  is,  that  "their  official  action  in 
the  premises  is,  in  the  judgment  of  this  body,  unwarranted  by 
any  canon,  law,  or  usage  of  the  Church." 

This  we  have  a  right  to  say — duty  to  ourselves  forbids  us  to 
say  less.  The  circumstances  of  this  case  would  justify  us.  We 
carry  our  defence  much  further.  AVe  have  been  assailed  in  our 
character,  hi  our  rights,  and  the  law  of  self-defence,  human  and 
divine,  would  justify  us  in  resisting  the  attack  ;  to  carry  the  war 
made  upon  us  into  the  enemy's  camp  ;  but  we  prefer  to  remain 
here  within  our  own  proper  jurisdiction,  and  simply  repel  the 
aggression  by  saying  to  those  who  have  invaded  our  Diocesan 
rights,  that  there  is  no  canon,  law,  or  usage  of  the  Church  to 
warrant  the  aggression. 

To  call  this  a  trial  of  the  three  Bishops,  is  to  pervert  the  whole 
case.  The  Reverend  gentleman  from  Paterson,  although  in  favor 
of  the  first  part  of  the  resolution,  which  asserts  our  rights,  finds 
difficulty  in  voting  for  that  part  which  declares  that  the  three 
Bishops  are  not  warranted,  by  law  or  usage,  in  their  aggression 
upon  these  rights ;  he  is  willing,  to  use  his  own  simile,  to  order 
an  intruder  out  of  his  house,  but  he  would  not  pursue  him  into 
the  streets ;  but  I  submit  to  my  Reverend  friend,  that  if,  when  he 
ejected  the  intruder  from  his  house,  he  should  say  to  him,  sir, 
there  is  no  canon,  law,  or  usage  to  warrant  the  trespass  you  have 
committed  upon  my  domestic  peace  and  rights,  he  would  consider 
that  he  was  passing  judgment  upon  the  iutruder.  The  civil  law 
would  justify  a  much  more  active  course,  but  certainly  neither 
Christian  patience,  nor  clerical  forbearance,  can  suggest  a  more 
mild  and  gentle  rebuke  to  an  intruder  than  that  proposed  by 
these  resolutions. 

We  all  know  that  this  Convention  cannot  try  the  three  Bishops 
for  this  aggression  upon  its  rights,  yet  all  must  admit  that  we  have 
the  right  to  resist  the  aggression.  To  do  so,  is  not  only  our  right, 
but  our  duty.  If,  therefore,  this  Convention  be  of  opinion  that  our 
diocesan  rights  have  been  invaded — and  I  have  heard  no  opinion  to 
the  contrary — let  us  express  that  opinion  at  once.  It  has  been 
published  to  Christendom  by  three  Bishops  of  the  Church,  that  we 
are  an  unfaithful  Convention,  and  cannot  be  trusted  with  affairs  of 
our  own  diocese ;  we  have  been  tried  without  notice,  and  condemned 
unheard.  We  do  not  retaliate  this  unjust  proceeding  upon  our 
accusers  ;  we  do  not  try  them,  but  may  defend  ourselves,  when 
they  say  that  this  Convention  is  partial  and  unfaithful.  We  reply, 
Reverend  Fathers,  you  have  no  right  to  make  the  accusation. 


52 

To  omit  to  say  this,  would  be  submission  to  their  wrong.  Ag- 
gressions, known  and  understood,  should  be  met  at  once,  met  at 
the  door,  and  resisted  before  they  have  time  to  enter  our  house- 
hold, and  disturb  its  peace.  Now  or  never,  is  the  time  to  take 
our  position  ;  we  must  either  submit  to,  or  resist  the  aggression 
now ;  we  cannot,  without  disgrace,  pass  it  over  to  another  Conven- 
tion. I  desire  no  rash  proceeding,  no  angry  recrimination,  but 
I  ask  for  prompt  and  final  action  upon  a  case  known  and  under- 
stood. And  if  the  old  Jersey  spirit — that  spirit  which  warmed  the 
hearts  and  nerved  the  arms  of  our  fathers  when  they  achieved 
our  civil  and  religious  liberties — still  lives  in  the  hearts  of  their 
sons,  we  shall  to-day  maintain,  against  all  foreign  aggression,  the 
freedom  and  the  independence  of  the  diocese  of  New  Jersey. 

The  question  being  taken  on  Mr.  Gilford's  resolution,  to  post- 
pone the  whole  matter  until  the  Annual  Convention,  it  was  lost  by 
an  overwhelming  negative  vote. 

The  Convention  being  now  ready  for  the  question,  the  ayes  and 
nays  were  called  for,  and  resulted  as  follows : 
FIRST  RESOLUTION. 
Clergy.  Laitt. 

Ayes  25.  Ayes  25. 

Nays     2.  Nays     8. 

Declined  to  vote  1.  Divided  1.     Declined  to  vote  1. 

Rev.  Samuel  L.  Southard — I  ask,  Sir,  if  you  please,  for  the 
reading  of  the  second  resolution. 

After  the  reading  of  the  resolution,  Mr  Southard  said — 

(Mr.  Starr  again  raised  the  question  whether  this  resolution 
was  within  the  call  of  the  Convention,  but  Mr.  Southard  claimed 
that  he  had  the  floor,  and  the  Bishop  so  decided. ) 

I  rise  to  advocate  the  adoption  of  this  resolution,  not  only  with 
my  heart,  but  as  an  act  of  simple  justice  to  yourself.  There  might 
be  circumstances,  in  which  no  resolution  of  the  kind  could  be  re- 
quired. The  Convention  of  1849,  in  which  an  indirect  attack  was 
made  upon  your  character,  expressed,  by  a  vote  unanimous,  their 
confidence  in  you.  If,  since  that  time,  no  action  had  been  taken, 
which,  in  any  way,  impeached  your  character,  the  circumstances 
then  would  still  be  such,  that  no  such  resolution  could  be  needed. 
But,  such  is  not  the  case.  In  1849,  in  perfect  knowledge  of  the 
rumours  which  were  then  existing,  by  some  termed  charges,  the 
Convention,  very  properly  I  think — although  I  had  not  then  the 
pleasure  to  be  present — expressed  their  confidence  (turning  to  the 
Bishop,)  in  your  honesty,  and  your  integrity.  And  I  wish  that  the 
Bishops  of  Virginia,  of  Maine,  and  of  Ohio,  had  been  there,  that  they 
might  have  weighed,  in  an  equal  scale  on  the  one  hand,  the  reputation 
and  the  influence,  the  weight  andnumber  of  his  adversaries,  (and  the 
power  perhaps,  which  is  behind,  to  which  allusion  has  been  made,) 
to  whose  charges  they  have  listened — and  on  the  other,  the  numbers, 
and  the  character,  the  purity  and  the  intelligence,  the  uprightness, 


53 

and  the  bearing  of  the  multitude  whose  voice  they  have  refused  to 
hear !  But  circumstances  have  occurred,  which  force  upon  us,  as 
an  act  of  simple  justice  to  the  Bishop  of  this  Diocese,  the  passing 
of  this  vote. 

And  I  knew,  by  intimations  which  were  given  in  the  discussion 
of  the  former  resolution,  by  the  Reverend  gentleman  from  Trenton, 
that  objections  would  be  made  to  the  legality  of  such  a  vote.  And 
I  insist  that  it  comes  within  the  call  of  the  Convention,  which  spe- 
cifies the  rights  both  of  the  Bishop  and  the  Diocese,  which  have 
now  been  assailed — and  that  the  action  of  the  Bishops  of  Vir- 
ginia, Maine,  and  Ohio,  has  furnished  the  occasion  for  the  adoption  of 
this  resolution.  For  the  character  of  the  Bishop  of  this  Diocese 
had  been  vindicated  by  the  expression  of  their  confidence,  by  the 
Convention  of  1849 — and  if  it  had  been  left  where  they  had  placed 
it,  we  might  be  silent  noiv.  But  as  a  part  of  their  official  action, 
they  have  thought  fit,  in  the  letter  they  have  sent,  to  question  and 
impeach,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  integrity  and  purity,  not  only 
of  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  but  of  the  majority  of  this  Conven- 
tion. Had  no  such  imputation  been  renewed,  and  from  that 
quarter,  then,  no  such  resolution  would  have  been  demanded. 

Now,  Sir,  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  resolution — its  intended  and 
true  sense.  Objection  has  been  made  to  the  vote  of  1849,  that  it 
is  claimed,  and  was  regarded,  as  a  verdict  after  trial!  No  such 
idea  is  entertained.  There  could  not  be  a  verdict  after  trial,  where 
no  charges  were  preferred — no  inquiry  had  been  instituted — no 
trial  had  been  had.  But,  it  was  conclusive  under  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  and  as  to  the  matters  which  had  then  been 
brought  before  the  members  of  Convention.  We,  now,  are  asked, 
by  the  offering  of  this  resolution,  to  express  our  confidence,  our 
unshaken  confidence,  in  the  uprightness  of  character,  and  purity 
of  intention,  of  the  Bishop  of  New  Jersey,  after  all,  that,  since  that 
time,  and  up  to  the  passing  hour,  in  any  way  has  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  members  of  this  body.  We  do  not  mean  it,  we 
could  not  mean  it,  as  the  rendering  of  a  verdict  after  trial.  No 
trial  has  been  instituted.  No  trial  has  seemed,  as  yet,  to  be  re- 
quired. We  are  asked  to  express  our  unshaken  confidence  in  the 
uprightness,  and  the  pure  intentions  of  the  Bishop,  during  the  time 
of  his  Episcopate,  notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  written  and 
whatever  may  have  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  members  of  this 
body — in  view  of,  bearing  in  mind,  considering,  allowing,  weighing, 
the  so-called  charges,  and  the  vindication — the  reply,  the  protest, 
the  appeal — the  published  pamphlets,  the  wars  of  rumours,  the 
newspaper  reports,  and  all  that  we  have  heard  as  individuals,  and, 
as  members  of  this  deliberative  body — in  vieio  of  all  these  — in  view 
of  all  that  has  been  charged,  and  answered — that  our  confidence 
remains  unmoved.  And,  we  see  not,  how  any  man  can,  with  the 
least  propriety,  refuse  it.  I  do  not  think,  myself,  that  I  shall 
live  to  see  the  day,  when  any  thing  will  be  discovered  in  the  trans- 
action of  the  Bishop,  to  which  reference  is  made,  which  will  6hake 


54 

my  confidence  in  him.  But,  still  we  must  allow,  it  may  be  so,  in 
the  case  of  any  individual.  As  yet,  however,  it  is  not  so.  Nothing 
has  come  to  light  to  impeach  the  purity  of  his  intention.  Nothing 
in  1849  had  been  preferred  in  such  a  manner  as  to  justify  the 
imputation — .and  I  was  glad  to  hear  the  language  of  the  four  and 
of  the  three,  in  reference  to  that  Convention,  so  manfully  rebuked 
by  the  Senator  from  New  Jersey.  Nothing  has  since  come  to  light 
to  justify  the  imputation.  I  have  read  whatever  has  been  written. 
I  have  read,  and  seriously  pondered,  the  charges  which  have  been 
directly  or  else  indirectly  made,  in  every  way ;  and,  in  view  of  all, 
I  am  prepared  to  adopt  this  resolution. 

And,  now  I  ask  you,  Brethren  of  the  Clergy,  partners,  and 
sharers  with  me,  in  the  joy  of  having  such  a  head — and  you,  Lay 
members  of  this  body,  partakers  with  us,  of  the  benefits  of  such  a 
ministry,  the  ministry  of  such  a  man — I  ask  you,  if  he  shall  not 
have  the  expression  of  your  confidence,  unshaken  still,  in  his  up- 
rightness, and  his  purity  ?  I  wish  that  I  might  hear,  in  answer, 
now,  the  voices  of  the  whole  community,  of  those  who  are  around 
us,  and  among  whom  he  long  has  lived  here;  on  the  very  theatre 
of  his  alleged  offences.  I  wish  I  were  at  liberty  to  call  upon  them 
for  the  verdict  of  this  whole  community — and  we  should  have  a 
repetition  of  the  scene  of  1849;  upon  the  one  hand,  there  would 
be  the  few  dissatisfied  complainants — and,  on  the  other,  a  vast  mul- 
titude, of  worthy  and  intelligent,  of  loving,  grateful,  benefited, 
trusting  citizens  !  I  wish  that  I  might  call  upon  the  yearning  and  pa- 
rental hearts,  through  every  portion  of  our  land,  whose  homes  are 
cheered,  and  blessed  by  their  returning  offspring,  who  have  been 
trained  by  him,  not  only  in  the  graces,  and  accomplishments  of  life, 
but  in  that  better  knowledge  which  has  made  them  "  wise  unto 
salvation !"  I  wish,  that,  I  might  call  upon  the  soil  around  us, 
which  is  worn  by  the  incessant  treadings  of  his  steps,  as  through  the 
lapse  of  nearly  twenty  years  he  has  been  going  in  and  out  among  his 
own  parishioners,  in  all  the  duties  of  his  ministry,  and  in  deeds  of 
sympathy,  and  sorrow,  and  of  love  !  I)o  they  not  warrant  the  ex- 
pression of  your  confidence  ?  May  I  not  ask — he  asks  it  not — but 
may  1  not  demand  for  him  as  bis  own  right,  his  new  created  and 
invested  right,  after  the  late  action  of  the  four  and  of  the  three, 
the  renewal  of  your  own  expression  of  your  trust  in  his  integrity  ? 

My  Father,  I,  for  one,  will  vote  my  confidence  in  you. 

The  Convention  being  now  ready  for  the  question,  the  ayes  and 
navs  were  called  for,  and  resulted  as  follows : 
SECOND  RESOLUTION.— Clergy.  Laitt. 

Ayes  25.  Ayes  25. 

Nays     1.  Nays     7. 

Declined  to  vote  1.  Divided  2. 

When  Mr.  Starr's  name  was  called,  he  declined  to  vote,  and 
stated  as  his  reason  that  the  resolution  was  not  within  the  call  of 
the  Convention. 

Mr.  Ryall  called  Mr.  Starr  to  order.  He  then  voted  in  the 
negative,  being  the  only  one  among  the  Clergy. 


55 

The  Belvidere  Lay  delegates,  through  Judge  W.  P.  Robeson, 
declined  voting  on  the  ground  taken  by  Mr.  Starr. 

Third  resolution  read. 

Judge  Ogden.  I  rise  with  hesitation,  Mr.  President,  at  this 
late  hour,  to  speak  to  this  Convention.  So  much  has  already  been 
so  well  said,  that  silence  would  better  become  me.  But,  sir,  the 
character  of  the  resolution  last  read,  should  commend  it  to  the 
favor  of  the  Convention ;  and  I  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to  direct 
attention  to  it,  at  the  same  time  promising  not  to  inflict  a  speech 
upon  them. 

The  resolution  states  two  facts,  and  draws  a  conclusion. 

It  sets  out  that  the  Bishop  has  avowed,  in  his  address,  his  wil- 
lingness to  meet  investigation  of  any  charges  properly  made  ;  and 
that  he  ever  has  been  so  ready.  The  first  you  have  heard  from 
his  mouth  this  morning,  and  who  can  gainsay  the  last  ?  Who  can 
complain  that  he  has  ever  shunned  or  ever  evaded  such  investiga- 
tion ? 

Who  of  those,  that  have  proclaimed  that  inquiry  was  avoided, 
can  rise  up  and  say,  that  he  has  ever  shrunk  from  meeting  the 
case? 

I  pause  for  a  reply.     None. 

The  resolution  then  sets  forth  an  affirmation,  that  the  Conven- 
tion has  always  been  ready  to  make  such  an  investigation.  In 
proof  of  this,  reference  is  made  to  the  action  had  in  1819.  Al- 
though the  exceptionable  shape  in  which  intimations  were  then 
made,  drew  forth  a  full  discussion,  which  terminated  in  unanimity 
against  the  resolution  proposed,  yet  it  was  then  again  and  again 
declared,  that  if  complaints  should  be  properly  made,  the  Conven- 
tion would  enter  upon  a  full  investigation.  No  complaint  was 
made  ;  of  course  no  investigation  took  place.  In  1850,  the  Con- 
vention passed  without  hearing  of  complaint.  In  1851,  no  com- 
plaint was  made,  although  the  delegate  from  St.  Michael's  has 
told  us,  that  if  the  Session  had  continued  until  the  second  day,  he 
should  have  presented  an  affidavit  of  Michael  Hays.  It  is  suffi- 
cient to  say,  that  no  such  affidavit  was  offered — no  investigation 
required ;  if  he  omitted  to  do  on  the  first  day,  what  he  should 
have  done,  his  negligence  cannot  be  turned  into  an  argument 
against  the  willingness  of  the  Convention  to  meet  and  discharge 
its  duty. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  the  resolution  declares  it  to  be  the  opi- 
nion of  the  Convention,  that  the  best  interests  of  the  diocese  and 
of  the  Church  at  large,  require  no  such  proceedings.  Is  this  a 
just  conclusion  ? 

It  is  a  negative  proposition,  and  hence  not  to  be  maintained  by 
argument. 

In  support  of  it,  however,  I  would  ask  for  evidence  to  show 
that  our  diocese  would  be  benefited  by  the  investigation. 

Have  we  dwindled  ?  Are  we  retrograding  under  the  "  obloquy" 
which  is  charged  by  the  four  laymen,  as  marring  the  Church  ? 


56 

Do  not  the  annual  reports  of  greatly  increasing  confirmations, 
communicants,  parishes,  and  missionarj'  stations,  show  the  pros- 
perity of  this  branch  of  Zion  ?  It  may  be  true,  that  defection 
and  apathy  pervade  some  particular  parishes,  but  may  not  a  more 
immediate  reason  for  such  calamity  be  found  in  the  parochial 
unfaithfulness  of  their  pastors,  in  their  disposition  to  alienate 
their" flocks  from  the  shepherd  of  the  diocese? 

These  are  questions  of  some  significancy. 

Does  the  Church  at  large  call  for  an  investigation  ? 

Who  can  answer  that  she  does? 

Would  the  prosperity  of  the  Seminaries,  conducted  by  our 
Diocesan,  be  promoted  by  such  proceedings  ?  They  are  constantly 
sending  out  into  the  length  and  breadth  of  our  land,  youth  of 
both  sexes,  well  furnished  with  useful  and  elegant  literature, 
grounded  in  Church  principles,  to  do  their  good  works  in  their 
various  circles  of  action  and  influence. 

A  continued  patronage  shows  that  parents  and  guardians  have 
no  lack  of  confidence  in  the  moral  and  religious  character  of  the 
aspersed. 

I  will  not  detain  the  Convention  longer,  but  in  conclusion  I  ask, 
who  will  put  his  hand  upon  his  heart  and  say,  that  the  disturb- 
ance in  the  Church,  which  would  follow  such  proceedings,  might 
not  produce  evil  consequences,  which  would  far  outweigh  any 
good  that  can  possibly  be  anticipated  from  them  ? 

Might   not  a  wedge  thus   be  entered,  which  would  rive   our 
Church  in  twain? 
The  Rev.  Mr.  Pratt,  (of  Perth  Amboy,)  said : 

It  is  with  much  diffidence  that  I,  one  of  the  youngest,  and  most 
unnoted  representatives  of  the  Church  in  this  diocese,  venture  to 
address  a  few  words  now  to  this  reverend  and  learned  Council. 

This,  however,  is  an  occasion,  Right  Reverend  Sir,  when  I  would 
wish  and  strive  to  overcome  any  diffidence,  and  let  my  voice  be 
heard.  And  there  is  a  reason,  too,  why  I  may  claim  your  indul- 
gence, and  that  of  this  Convention,  in  taking  the  privilege  to 


Had  I  the  weight  of  a  vote  in  this  body,  I  should,  doubtless,  be 
content  to  let  its  silent  significance  indicate  my  convictions  and  my 
judgment  on  the  grave  and  momentous  question  that  is  now 
before  us.  For,  I  am  well  aware  that  my  vote  would  be  of  far 
higher  importance  and  interest,  at  this  time,  than  any  remarks  it 
is  in  my  power  to  proffer.  But  as  I  have  no  vote,  I  beg  to  be  per- 
mitted to  speak,  that  so  my  voice  at  least  may  humbly  express  its 
opinion,  though  it  may  not  have  the  honor  of  appearing  on  the 
record. 

For  nearly  three  years  past,  I  have  been  numbered  with  that, 
in  some  respects,  unfortunate  class,  styled  "  Rectors  Elect,"  who, 
according  to  a  canon  of  this  diocese,  can  have  no  vote,  nor  be 
eligible  to  any  office  in,  or  from,  this  Convention. 

Owing  to  some  old,  but  I  know  not  how  well-founded,  prejudice 


57 

of  those  who  are  the  controllers,  in  things  temporal,  of  my  parish, 
they  are  unwilling  to  have  him  whom  they  have  chosen  to  be  over 
them  in  the  Lord,  "  instituted"  in  his  cure. 

One  of  our  diocesan  canons  is  indeed  thus  deliberately  disre- 
garded ;  one  of  the  excellent  and  beautiful  offices  of  our  inestimable 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  is  certainly  set  at  nought ;  yet  none  heeds 
or  suffers  thereby — except,  perchance,  the  poor  "  Rector  Jjtfect .'" 
This,  however,  I  am  well  aware,  is  not  the  occasion  to  discuss 
the  expediency  of  that  canon,  which  I  do  not  see  any  good  reason 
to  question ;  neither  is  this  the  time  or  place  to  reflect  upon  that 
sense  of  justice,  equity,  and  generosity  manifested  by  the  temporal 
officers  of  any  church,  who  would  debar  their  chosen  Rector  the 
high  and  precious  privilege  of  suffrage,  nullify  his  eligibility  to 
whatever  offices  in  the  ecclesiastical  councils  ;  and  yet,  be  repre- 
sented by  a  lay  delegation  in  Conventions,  who,  themselves  enjoy 
and  exercise  the  right  to  vote ! 

But  let  this  matter  pass,  for  the  present.  I  was  moved  to  allude 
to  it,  because  now,  more  than  ever,  I  could  well  nigh  chafe  and 
repine,  that  I,  a  presbyter  in  this  ancient  diocese,  and  the  Rector 
of  its  most  ancient  parish,  am  quite  powerless,  and  of  no  importance 
here  !_  My  tongue,  for  this  reason,  was  loth  to  be  silent,  on  this 
occasion.  ^  For  silence,  at  such  a  crisis  as  this,  in  one  who  is 
voteless,  might  be  misconstrued  !  I,  for  one,  wish  not  to  run  the 
risk !  On  the  grave  and  vitally  important  business  now  before 
this  Convention,  the  opinions  of  all  should  be  known !  Let  none 
now  wear  the  mantle  of  evasion,  indifference,  or  silence,  or  fear. 
Let  "  Rectors  elect,"  as  well  as  "  Rectors  Instituted,"  here  pub- 
licly declare  their  calm  and  conscientious  judgment,  and  the 
movement,  and  the  object  which  have  caused  this  assembling  of 
ourselves  together! 

This  is  a  time,  Sir,  when  the  voice  of  New  Jersey's  Convention 
should  every  where  be  heard,  giving  forth  no  uncertain  sound ! 
This  is  the  momentous  day  when  all  true  churchmen  of  this  dio- 
cese should  be  unhesitating  and  united  in  expressing  their  sense 
of"  the  exciting  cause  which  is  now  presented  for  their  considera- 
tion. _  And  whatever  the  action  and  the  decision  of  this  special 
council  may  be,  it  is  my  desire  that  I  be  ranked  with  them,  in  sen- 
timent and  in  judgment,  though  I  cannot  be  by  vote  !  And  this,  Sir, 
because  I  am  deliberately  persuaded  that  the  voice  of  the  majority 
will  accord  with  justice  and  with  truth !  I  shall  be  with  them  in 
heart,  because  I  feel  assured  that  they  will  deal  fairly,  impartially, 
and  honorably  towards  him,  whom  the  event  of  this  memorable 
day  must  chiefly  interest  and  concern ! 

Now,  Sir,  in  connection  with  this  confident  opinion  of  the  stand 
which  the  great  body  of  this  Convention  must  surely  take,  in  ex- 
pressing their  sense  of  the  unprecedented  demonstration  which 
has  specially  convened  us— permit  me,  at  this  opportune  moment,  to 
make  particular  allusion  to  the  relations  which  exist  between  the 
Bishop  of  this  diocese,  and  the  united  band  of  brethren  in  Christ 


58 

who  deem  it  a  happy  privilege  to  look  to  him  as  their  Overseer,  and 
Father  in  the  Church.  I  have  heard  and  known  some  persons, 
who  were  graciously  privileged  to  receive  holy  baptism  in  this 
fold,  to  bemoan,  and  ridicule,  and  sneer  at,  the  devotion  of  the 
clergy — the  "subserving  and  cringing  servility" — as  some  have 
termed  it — to  their  Bishop. 

I  will  not  descend  so  low  as  to  ask  whether  these  latter  terms 
are  merited  or  just!  But  I  will  ask,  if  such  individuals  have  ever 
witnessed  or  read  the  solemn  vow  and  promise  made  by  these  min- 
isters when  they  presented  themselves  to  receive  their  sacred  com- 
mission and  spiritual  authority  at  a  Bishop's  hands  ? — "Will  you 
reverently  obey  your  Bishop,  and  other  chief  ministers,  who,  ac- 
cording to  the  canon  of  the  Church,  may  have  charge  and  govern- 
ment over  you  ;  following  with  a  glad  mind  and  will  their  godly 
admonitions,  and  submitting  yourselves  to  their  godly  judgments  ?" 
What  is  the  answer  ?  "I  will  do  so,  the  Lord  being  my  helper." 
If  any  one  does  not  do  so,  then,  may  we  not  justly  conclude  the 
Lord  does  not  help  him  at  all  ? 

We  of  the  clergy  believe,  Sir — and  we  would  fain  hope  there  is 
not  one  among  our  ranks  disposed  to  be  recreant  to  his  vow- 
that  there  is  a  meaning,  and  a  particular  significance  in  these 
words  of  the  Ordination  office.  We  believe  that  the  order,  peace, 
and  quietness  of  the  Church  are  involved  in  the  observance  of  this 
promise.  We  have  heard,  Sir,  of  "false  prophets."  And  there  is 
a  considerable  and  respectable  number  of  us,  who  desire  not,  and 
pray  that  they  may  never  be  among  those  who  are  "presump- 
tuous, self-willed,  not  afraid  to  speak  evil  of  dignities  /" 

Such  of  our  order  beg  leave  to  be  withdrawn  from  "every 
brother  that  walketh  disorderly  ;"  we  hope  not  to  think  more 
highly  of  ourselves  than  we  ought  to  think!  Our  ambition  on 
this  point  is  a  higher  and  a  nobler!  It  is  to  "obey  them  that 
have  the  rule  over  us,  and  submit  ourselves."  We  know  that  God 
has  "set"  some  as  His  chief  officers  in  the  Church.  We  own 
some  deference  and  allegiance  to  our  chief! — because  we  would 
not  have  schism  in  the  "  one  body."  It  seems  strange,  therefore, 
that  men  should  not  honor  these  feelings  of  the  clergy  towards 
their  Bishop,  rather  than  vilify  and  scoff  them  !  They  are  but 
doing  their  duty,  in  this  particular,  as  the  ministers  of  Christ ! 
They  have  promised  to  be  submissive  and  reverent ;  shall  they  be 
disobedient,  and  arrogant?  If  the  clergy,  in  their  hearts  and  con- 
sciences have  faith  in  the  integrity,  honor,  and  morality  of  their 
Bishop,  and  believe  these  virtues  to  be  unjustly  assailed,  shall  they 
be  denied,  because  they  choose  to  stand  by  their  head,  defend  him 
in  the  assault,  and  yield  to  his  "godly  judgment?"  Shall  they 
desert  and  decry  him,  whom  they  have  sacredly  vowed  to  reverence 
and  serve ;  because,  in  time  of  adversity  and  disappointment,  he 
has  proved  to  be  fallible — like  other  men — and  not  free  from 
fault,  though  free  from  the  design  of  fault? 

But,  Sir,  to  leave  the  clergy — who,  to  say  the  least,  are  happily 


59 

unconscious  of  the  imputed  "  servility," — how  is  it  with  the  Laity 
of  New  Jersey  ?  They  have  made  no  such  solemn  promise  to  their 
Bishop,  and  therefore,  need  not  feel  quite  so  strictly  bound  !  Yet, 
if  my  observation  has  not  greatly  deceived  me,  never  was  there  a 
more  devoted,  enthusiastic,  aud  faithful  band  of  laymen  rallied 
around  a  minister  of  Christ's  Gospel,  and  a  Bishop  of  His  Church, 
than  here  in  this  Convention,  and  throughout  this  Diocese;  who 
thus  nobly  distinguish  themselves  and  honor  the  object  of  their 
esteem! — No  !  thank  God,  the  clergy  of  New  Jersey  are  not  alone 
and  singular,  in  their  affection  and  support !  The  number  of  New 
Jersey's  most  distinguished,  warm-hearted,  and  worthiest  church- 
men of  the  Laity,  is  quite  large  and  strong  enough  to  defend  their 
Bishop  in  his  rights,  ward  off  the  darts  of  persecution,  and  sternly 
rebuke  the  unworthy  originators  of  mischief  and  discord  in  our 
midst! 

The  multitude  of  our  Diocesan's  unshaken  and  trusting  friends, 
I  cannot  count ;  but  the  force  of  those  who  think  evil  of  his  words 
and  works  could  be  easily  and  quickly  reckoned — at  least  of  all 
those  who  have  the  hardihood  to  show  their  colors  I 

We  of  the  clergy,  and  you,  brethren  of  the  Laity,  admire  and 
honor  our  Bishop  for  what  he  has  done  ;  we  sorrow  with  him 
that  he  has  been  to  some  extent  disappointed  in  what  his  genius 
planned ;  but  we  submit  with  him  to  God's  dispensations  ;  we  love 
him  for  what  he  is,  and  what  he  is  now  doing  ;  but,  believe  him 
guilty  of  wilful  wrong  ? — not  yet,  not  yet,  and  never  do  we  think  that 
time  will  come  ! 

But  what  is  it,  Sir,  that  we  are  besoiight  to  do  ?  And  what 
would  the  adversary  have  ? — And  what  has  brought  together  this 
Convention,  now,  before  the  annual  time  ?  We  are  besought  to  in- 
vestigate charges  against  the  good  name  of  our  Bishop,  which 
have  no  better  parent  than  "public  rumor."  Fit  offspring  of  such 
a  parent ! 

The  adversary  would  have  us  yield  to  his — (I  say  not,  as  some 
have  judged,  "  malicious")  instigation — that  we  should  attack  and 
hunt  down  one,  against  whom  the  great  mass  of  the  impartial  and 
the  unprejudiced  have  no  cause  of  suspicion,  nor  complaint. 

And  this  Convention,  at  a  special  time,  has  been  primarily  in- 
duced, by  a  hostile  movement  against  its  head,  on  the  part  of  four 
individuals  who,  I  believe,  claim  the  right,  and  enjoy  the  honor  of 
a  seat  here  !  What,  Sir,  would  they  have  us  rake  open  the  buried 
ashes  of  the  past,  that  we  may  see  whether  no  living  coals  can 
be  discovered  there,  either  to  consume  the  lofty  and  silvered  Oak, 
which  they  would  fell,  or  else  to  burn  and  blacken  his  accusers  ? — 
Better,  methinks,  to  let  those  coals  lie  hid  that  they  may  die,  and 
so,  both  parties  live  ! 

Would  any  investigation  give  satisfaction  to  these  accusers,  and 
those  whose  hearts  are  warped  by  bitter  prejudice  ?  They  so  cer- 
tainly affirm  their  charges  to  be  true — and  that  they  believe  them 
so,  that  I  much  doubt,  if  an  angel  from  heaven  could  convince 


60 

them  to  the  contrary,  or  persuade  them  that  they  were  hugging 
only  a,  false  belief! 

Is  it  possible,  Right  Reverend  Sir,  that  these  individuals,  and 
their  unnamed  abettors — if  such  they  have — may  be  deluding 
themselves  with  the  idea  of  bringing  about  peace  in  the  Church  ? 
Is  it  possible  they  are  deceiving  others,  and  beguiling  them  to 
favor  their  attempt,  and  drawing  them  over  by  their  show  of  honest 
intentions,  while  they  cry  out  "  Peace  !  Peace  !" 

This,  Sir,  has  before  been  used  as  the  cry  of  those  who  have 
brought  ruin,  dissentions,  and  sorrowful  desolation  into  many  a 
fair  and  goodly  heritage !  Let  us  not  be  unsettled  by  this  cry  ! 
Let  us  beware  in  time,  and  shun  the  snare  ! 

There  are  some  men,  Sir,  so  strongly  prejudiced  they  will  not 
heed  the  truth.  So  blinded  they  will  not  see,  nor  come  to  the 
light !  So  obstinate  they  will  not  be  convinced  by  fair  reason  ! 
And  some,  so  fond  of  war,  they  mistake  that  for  peace  !  So  small 
of  heart  they  know  not  how  to  be  generous  or  charitable  them- 
selves, and  cannot  appreciate  these  virtues  in  another  !  God  help 
such  !  Let  us  leave  them  to  His  mercy  and  their  oxen  consciences  ! 

Before  concluding  these  imperfect  but  heart-felt  remarks,  per- 
mit me  to  call  to  your  remembrance,  and  that  of  this  reverend 
and  learned  body,  what  one  of  the  most  eminent,  eloquent,  and 
successful  advocates  who  has  ever  graced  the  bar  in  this  country, 
who  was  also  one  of  our  most  consistent,  staunch,  and  pious 
churchmen,  (David  B.  Ogden,  Esq.,  since  called  to  a  higher  than 
earthly  court,)  once  said — on  a  memorable  occasion — upon  the 
same  cry,  which  is  now  the  plea  and  watchword  of  some  among 
us — "  The  good  of  the  Church!" 

"  This  cry  of  "the  good  of  the  Church,"  has  led  to  the  perpetra- 
tion of  more  iniquity  than  has  any  other  appeal  to  the  passions  of 
mankind !  It  was  the  regard  of  the  Jews  for  their  Church  !  that 
induced  them  to  call  out,  "Crucify  Him!  Crucify  Him!"  It  was 
the  cry  of  "the  good  of  the  Church,"  which  led  our  blessed'Re- 
deemer  to  the  cross !  It  was  the  cry  of  "  the  good  of  the  Church!" 
that  produced  the  martyrdom  of  the  holy  St.  Stephen !  It  was 
the  cry  of  "the  good  of  the  Cnurch!"  that  led  to  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Inquisition,  and  all  the  horrors  and  enormities  of  that 
accursed  institution !  The  cry  of  "  the  good  of  the  Church !"  has 
put  thousands  of  martyrs  to  death,  and  has,  I  repeat  it,  produced 
more  bloodshed,  and  cruelty,  and  desolation  on  this  earth  than 
any  argument  ever  used  by  man !  Let  it  not  be  said,  that  in  this 
enlightened  day  there  is  no  danger  from  this  appeal !  The  human 
heart  is  the  same  in  all  ages !  It  is  the  same  now,  that  it  was  in 
the  bloodiest  days  of  the  Inquisition — the  same  as  it  was  when 
the  blessed  Saviour  was  crucified  on  Calvary !  Man  is  still  the 
same  being  that  he  was  when  driven  from  the  gates  of  Paradise. 
He  has  the  same  passions,  the  same  prejudices,  the  same  feelings; 
and  if  you  once  convince  men  that  "  the  good  of  the  Church"  re- 
quires extreme  measures,  (in  a  case  like  this,)  there  is  imminent 
danger  that  justice,  mercy,  and  truth  will  be  trampled  under  foot! 


61 

"These  observations  are  the  result  of  deep-rooted  and  long 
cherished  feelings  in  my  bosom.  They  are  founded  on  history — 
on  the  history  of  mankind  during  all  ages.  Once  actuated  by  this 
blind  zeal  for  the  Church,  men  go  on  headlong,  conscientiously 
believing  they  are  right,  but  trampling  under  their  feet  all  that  is 
right !  So  it  was  with  the  Jews — they  were  zealous  for  their  be- 
loved and  ancient  Church  !  They  thought  they  were  right  when 
they  were  nailing  the  Redeemer  to  the  accursed  tree  ;  and  He,  you 
all  recollect,  prayed,  "  Father !  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not 
what  they  do  !"  But  will  it  excuse  the  blind  and  maddened  zealot, 
who  may  hereafter  plead  that  he  knew  not  what  he  did  ?  Let  us 
be  cautious,  then,  how  we  regard  this  cry,  for  the  sake  of  a  doubt- 
ful good. — "  Our  Church  is  the  Church  of  God  ; — the  God  whose 
distinguishing  attributes  are  truth,  justice,  and  mercy  !  The  God 
of  the  Church  can  never  require  that  justice  should,  be  tram- 
pled under  foot,  truth  disregarded,  and  mercy  forgotten  !" — 

And,  now,  Sir,  let  me  ask  what  answer  can  New  Jersey's  Con- 
vention make,  and  what  should  be  their  forever  final  voice  upon 
these  charges  ?  Justice,  truth,  and  mercy,  and  honor,  and  dignity, 
and  Christian  charity  demand,  that  we  should  not  countenance  the 
aggression,  nor  satisfy  the  call  of  four  individuals  here  against  him, 
whom  we  delight  to  honor  still !  And,  lastly,  that  we  should 
neither  yield  to  the  advice  and  urgency — I  speak  with  due  respect — 
of  even  three  Rt.  Rev.  Fathers — appointed  over  other  folds  than 
his  and  ours — who  have  thought  fit  to  recommend  that  we 
should  first  treat  as  guilt}/  in  order  to  prove  innocent  one,  their 
peer,  whom  we  already  believe,  and  in  our  hearts  and  consciences, 
long  since  judged  to  be,  intact  of  guilt,  and  in  morals  irreproach- 
able ? 

The  Convention  being  now  ready  for  the  question,  the  ayes  and 

nays  were  called  for,  and  resulted  as  follows : 

THIRD   RESOLUTION. 

Clergy.  Laity. 

Ayes  24.  Ayes  22. 

Nays     1.  Nays     5. 

Divided  2.     Declined  to  vote  2. 

Mr.  Rutherford  again  offered  his  protest,  and  in  reply  to  it, 
Judge  Ogden  said  that  he  did  not  intend  to  object  to  the  right  of 
protesting  in  proper  language,  but  that  it  is  evident  that  this 
motion  is  nothing  more  than  a  written  argument  upon  the  ques- 
tions before  the  Convention,  couched  in  language  disrespectful  to 
the  Convention.     He  therefore  objected  to  its  reception. 

Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  the  resolutions  adopted  by  this  Con- 
vention be  transmitted  to  the  Bishops  of  the  various  Dioceses,  and 
to  the  Standing  Committee  of  any  Diocese  without  a  Bishop,  or 
whose  Bishop  is  under  disability. 

After  singing  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis,  and  Prayer  offered  by  the 
Bishop,  the  Convention  adjourned. 


62 


From  the  Trenton  State  Gazette. 
THE  REAL    ASPECT  OF  THE    VOTE. 

"  Another  Member  of  the  Convention"  is  at  odds  with  facts. 
The  whole  clerical  vote  of  the  diocese  of  New  Jersey  is  thirty- 
nine.  When  the  Bishop  declines  to  vote,  as  he  did  at  the  Spe- 
cial Convention,  it  is  thirty-eight.  Twenty-eight  clerical  voters 
were  present.  Twenty-five  sustained  the  Bishop.  One  de- 
clined to  vote.  There  remain  to  be  accounted  for — not  as  he 
states,  thirty-two,  but — ten.  Of  these,  there  were  kept  from 
the  vote  by  sickness,  one ;  one  by  parish  duty  ;  one  was  in 
Europe.  1  he  absence  of  five  is  unexplained.  Seven  of  those 
ten,  it  is  known,  sympathized  with  the  majority.  It  is  not 
known  that  the  other  three  did  not.     So  far  of  the  clergy  vote! 

Now,  of  the  cleroy  not  entitled  to  vote.  Of  these  there  are 
twenty-one.  Twelve  of  them,  though  canonically  resident  in 
the  diocese,  actually  reside  out  of  it;  or,  in  other  ways,  are 
not  reliable  for  attendance  at  the  Convention.  Of  the  remain- 
ing nine,  it  is  known  that  seven  sympathized  with  the  majority. 

If,  then,  these  nine  had  been  entitled  to  vote  with  the  thirty- 
eight — the  whole  number  of  clerical  votes,  which  would,  then, 
be  forty-seven,  being  present — the  majority  vote  would  certainly 
have  numbered  tJiii  ty-nine.  And  of  the  remaining  eight,  but 
four  can  be  set  down  as  certain  for  the  opposition. 

"Another  Member  of  tub  Convention"  makes  out  but 
little  better  with  the  Lay  vote,  when  the  facts  confront  him. 
The  "  published  list"  to  which  he  refers,  has  always  been  fur- 
nished by  the  Bishop.  It  contains  the  names,  not  only  of  the 
parishes,  but  of  the  AH-sionary  Stations,  and  all  other  places 
where  services  are  ever  held.  The  whole  number  of  such  places, 
as  stated  in  the  last  Journal,  is  fifty-eight.  To  these  three  new 
parishes  are  to  be  added;  making  sixty-one.  At  five  of  these 
places  there  is  no  claim  pretended  for  a  representation;  leaving 
the  maximum  that  could  be  represented,  fifty-six.  There 
were  present  thirty-seven  representatives.  Nineteen  are  left  to 
be  accounted  for.  At  three  of  these  no  service  is  held  ;  which 
leaves  sixteen.  Eight  of  these  were  not  represented  at  the  last 
Convention.  And  of  the  remaining  eight,  four  would  certainly 
have  voted  with  the  majority.  There  remain  four  that  can 
possibly  be  added  to  the  minority  in  the  Special  Convention. 
This,  on  the  first  resolution  was  eight,  (Christ  Church,  Bor- 
dentown,  having  been  erroneously  included  by  the  Secretary  ;) 
on  the  second  was  seven  ;  and  on  the  third  was  five.  Add  four, 
and  they  become  twelve,  eleven,  nine.  No  very  great  proportion 
of  fifty-six.  And  yet,  one  must  be  taken  even  from  this  ;  a 
vote  having  been  given  in  the  minority,  from  a  place  where 


63 

io  congregation  and  no  service,  (but  at  funerals,)  ex- 

q  the  Bishop  makes  his  annual  visitation.     The  mi- 

thus  reduced  to  eleven,  ten,  eight.    Deduct  the  four 

which  were  represented,  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  the 

isers  of  the  Bishop,  and  for  the  time  no  doubt  con- 

j  them,  and  there  remain,  seven,  and   six,  and  five. 

ito  the  scale  the  whole  of  the  eight  parishes  not  repre- 

the  last  Annual  Convention — which  would  be  most 

half  of  them — and  the  maximum,  that  would  not  have 

favor  of  the  resolution,  dwindles  from  "  twenty-nine," 

jther  Member  of  the  Convention"  states  it,  to  fifteen, 

twelve — an  average  of  fourteen  out  of  Jifty-six — 

y  the  more  probable  number. 

,he  request  "  that  every  clergyman  be  present  and  every 
^presented,"  "  Another  Member  of  the  Convention" 
ery  well  that  none  of  those  who  voted  against  the 
would  have  waited  for  his  invitation. 

A  Member  of  the  Convention. 


PHOTOMOUNT 
PAMPHLET  BINDER 

Manufactured  by 

SAYLORD  BROS.  Inc. 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

Slocklon,  Calif. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


^~*w 


